How many Brexiteers does it take to change a light bulb? — @UrbanPeri
It seems to me Brexiteers have no need for changing light bulbs – they seem happy to have us all wander aimlessly in the dark. The battle for Brexit was fought on the grounds of “getting our country back”, but given that Britain consists of four different countries, replete with their own languages, cultures and values, it seems rather odd that Brexit exists as a concept at all. When you think about it, it really is nothing more than an attempt to unite the worst aspects of nationalism under one banner.
“Brexiteer” evokes images of piracy, crusades and debauchery. Given the UK Government’s lack of a Brexit action plan, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they wound up resorting to buccaneering once again. When a country is more concerned with maintaining its age-old reputation as strong, brave, noble or virtuous than it is with looking after its citizens, the threat of violence and criminality can never be far on the horizon.
Brexiteers’ idea of change was merely a trip back in time. If this trend continues, light bulbs will give way to candlesticks, and I’m confident Brexiteers will ignite themselves with the flame.
What do you make of the SNP’s minimum pricing policy? — Eric, Glasgow
Believing that money is what matters with alcoholism seems far off the mark. As somebody that has enjoyed getting heavily intoxicated for most of my adult life, I believe that drinkers will simply cut back on other expenses to accommodate booze. Cigarettes, for example, have been steadily increasing in price for years, to the point that a non-smoker would consider them an unaffordable indulgence, and yet many of my closest friends budget for this very habit.
It will take a lot more than an increase in price to break my self-destructive love of liquor. This is what I find insulting about the policy: it makes no effort to engage with the causes of addiction. Minimum pricing endeavours to lower the standards of an alcoholic’s life in some attempt to punish them out of addiction. This is not a justifiable way to combat the problem of substance abuse.
Minimum pricing represents an unwanted “thou-shalt-not” style of government, rather than a compassionate approach to a public health problem. It discriminates against the poor and will act as a major irritation for the middle-classes.
That said, people who occasionally get drunk for a laugh shouldn’t be penalised for doing nothing wrong. Especially in an age where drinking out in bars is already horrifically unaffordable. A relative of mine was recently explaining to me the concept of “pre-drinks”: an effort to get a buzz on before going out to a club to save money. She went on to say that even this isn’t as inexpensive as some would like, and has led to them taking drugs before heading out on the town. I imagine minimum pricing will compound this problem. Once the legal substances are unaffordable, people will turn to the illegal ones to fill the void.
Though minimum pricing is not necessarily a form of prohibition, it stems from the same illogical mindset. I would rather have seen similar health warnings to cigarettes put on alcohol before we considered raising the cost of it. Creating an environment where individuals are well informed, and feel comfortable discussing addiction, is vastly more important than hurting people’s bank balances and infuriating the booze industry.
David Mundell has said that “it doesn’t matter what Scotland says”. Is that the final nail in the coffin of the union? — @jjanderson79
David “Fluffy” Mundell is a peculiar individual. As the sole Tory representative for Scotland at Westminster for the past decade, Mundell has had the task of shamelessly making a nuisance of himself as the final representative of Conservative influence in north of the Border.
Some of you may remember the 1990s cartoon show, Recess. Mundell bears a striking remembrance – in physical form and in attitude – to the playground snitch named Randall, who hid behind the authoritarian teacher Miss Finster. This pretty much sums up Tory influence in Scotland today. They serve no purpose in terms of bettering the nation, but are happy to attempt to create the illusion that the union is strong, healthy and here to stay.
Mundell’s cartoonish qualities can be seen in most aspects of his existence as a politician. When he says there is no appetite for a second independence referendum, you have to question his sources. There seems to be a considerable disconnect between his claim the union is popular, and Scotland overwhelmingly voting SNP.
In the wake of the Brexit vote, Scotland finds itself in an undesirable position and Mundell is happy to ignore the reality of the situation in order to wave a union flag and pretend all is okay. For Mundell to suggest Brexit “might” result in additional devolved powers is pathetic. Better Together conned the people of Scotland last time around. We won’t be fooled again. The end of the union is inevitable; the Tories are just ensuring our final years are as uncomfortable as possible.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here