Agreed alan d- for someone usually so measured and scholarly in his public utterances, Stamp's comments are bizarre.
I spent quite a bit of time in and around Glasgow in 1999 for the year of architecture and design, and I noticed that much was made of Thomson and his legacy. Nowhere was there any mention of sectarian bias etc- it was all about celebrating the city and emphasising that there was (is) more to Glasgow than CRM.
Though I didn't know Thomson or St Vincent Street before then I quickly became a fan- it really is a great building. (That basement entrance that seems carved from the rock is fantastic.) But I understood that another of his churches, in the Gorbals I think, was in much greater danger- maybe even roofless? My memory is vague.
His comments are slightly reminiscent of the 'belted earls' era of Irish 'conservation' when the fact that the great houses were the legacy of the Anglo-Irish ascendancy stopped our more...eh... 'patriotic' politicians seeing the houses for what they were- the fruits of a period of our history, built and designed by Irish craftsmen etc etc. I sometimes think that getting over that hurdle (we're almost there) has been the greatest achievement in Irish conservation, i.e. getting to the point where merit is the principal determinant. It would be a shame if such a mentality still prevailed in Glasgow (I can only take your word for it that it probably doesn't in architecture/heritage circles, which seems fair), but it is a shame that Stamp has seen fit to air his concerns. These can be tricky cans to close once opened.
One other thing- how much good can £1 million actually do? Especially when it took £5 million to do just the spire in the late 1990s.