Whisky Magazine Issue 58
This article is 6 years old and some information provided may be time sensitive. Please check all details of events, tours, opening times and other information before travelling or making arrangements.
Copyright Whisky Magazine © 1999-2013. All rights reserved. To use or reproduce part or all of this article please contact us for details of how you can do so legally.
Dominic Roskrowis leaving the building. Here he says goodbye after four years as Editor
I've spent a great deal of time in recent weeks pondering where whisky might go in the future. Much of this thinking has been prompted by the fact that wherever whisky's going I need to go too, because I am leaving full time employment as editor of Whisky Magazine, and my future in whisky will lie in other areas, though I will continue to write for it and to stay on as consultant editor.
Part of this thought process has been prompted by reading Whisky by Aeneas MacDonald, which we covered in the last issue of the magazine and which has been described as the greatest book ever written about whisky.
It isn't. But it is an important book and a historically significant one. It gives whisky a context and puts up a robust defence for the spirit. It was the first book to do so.
But powerful as the writer's argument is, there is also a conceit here. It is written from an overwhelmingly Scottish perspective and with a degree of elitism that is at best misguided and at worst, plain wrong.
“The English,” MacDonald writes, “who, by definition, will believe anything the Scots tell them, took whisky from their northern neighbours. It is doubtful, all the same, if they have ever taken to it. The ale-sodden Saxon has a temperamental inability to comprehend the true inner nature of whisky.” Really? And yet arguably the planet's two greatest whisky writers are English.
This has been the launching point for my musings about whisky's future. For it seems to me that there are two typ...