I HAVE been struck by the furore over Mark Carney’s role as Governor of the Bank of England and his decision to depart the post in 2019 (1st November).
A number of Tory Brexiteers believe that the Governor should resign immediately. The reason given for this is the so-called “political interventions” he made in the run up to the EU referendum.
This is intriguing given that Mr Carney’s comments on the UK and the EU were a lot less forthright than those he made in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, when he questioned the compatibility of a currency union with sovereignty.
It is rather puzzling that these same individuals so critical of Mr Carney’s “political” intervention in the EU debate, were so quiet when it came to the Scottish independence referendum.
While Mr Hannan was critical of Mr Carney’s intervention in the Scottish independence referendum on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme, I do not remember him making the same complaint at the time. One can only hope these same individuals will be equally forthcoming should a similar matter arise in the next Scottish independence referendum.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
OUR human rights have never been under greater threat than they are now, as many of them are part of EU law, consequently will not be on the agenda in the UK/EU Brexit negotiations and could be eliminated by the Tory Party’s Great Repeal Act (Brexit a threat to human rights standards, says EU law expert, The National, November 1).
It is fairly obvious to anyone studying the many changes that have been made to the UK’s social security and employment legislation, from the Thatcher Government era to the present day, that the current Tory Government sees Brexit as a golden opportunity to rapidly reduce or remove human rights from the people of this “great united kingdom”.
It is encouraging to see that Dr Tobias Lock has got the attention of Holyrood’s Equalities and Human Rights Committee with his paper on the implication of exiting the EU.
In spite of the recent concord between Holyrood opposition parties in their attacks on the Scottish Government, it seems unlikely that they will cooperate with the SNP to find a common approach for the Scottish Parliament when it comes to protecting the Scottish people.
Past actions speak louder than present words, a committee made up of MSPs from the Tory Party who are proposing the changes, Labour who voted with them in Westminster to make £12 billion of savings in the social security budget and the LibDems who have been coalition partners to both, all implacably opposed to any legislation proposed by the SNP, does not bode well for the future of Scotland’s human rights legislation.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
I AGREE with Ronnie Cowan, SNP MP: we should legalise all drugs in Scotland (Legalise all drugs in Scotland - MP, The National, October 31). Issue health warnings like with cigarettes.
Those selling the drugs should be licensed chemists and pay taxes on them. By the same token, those caught selling without a licence should face 15-year jail sentences. Likewise with prostitution, take away the criminal element and give those girls legal and medical protection.
Then ask them if this is really what they want to do. Since Scottish law is independent of English law, Westminster really should have no say according to the Act of Union.
Paul, Irvine
via text
I WAS confused by the comments from Professor Neil McKeganey in your story about safe injecting rooms for Glasgow (Glasgow moves to offer safe facility for drug use, The National, November 1). Prof McKeganey appears to oppose this move because only around five per cent of addicts want such facilities – yet as the others quoted in the articles make clear, the facility is aimed squarely at this five per cent, who cause the most harm to both themselves and their communities.
Kelly Black
Falkirk
I MUST confess, sadly, to being less than moved by the news of Tony Gauci’s demise (Key Lockerbie witness dies, The National, October 31).
Readers unwilling to to wade through the reams of documentation pointing to Mr al-Megrahi’s wrongful conviction might be interested in a book which analyses the process by which the late key witness provides his testimony.
I refer to the novel by the excellent Scottish (and pro-independence) author James Robertson: The Professor of Truth.
Archie McArthur
Edinburgh
SO this Tory Government has decided against an enquiry into the 1984 industrial conflict, and that protecting Thatcher’s Government is more important than justice for miners and their communities.
Thatcher declared an industrial war against the miners for bring down Heath’s Tory Government, and corrupted the police to fight this conflict. The government, police and courts colluded in the process, and that is why the Home Secretary has refused an inquiry. The police abuse at Hillsbourgh would not have happen had they not already done the same with the miners.
The SNP are doing the right thing by pardoning gay men for historic offences that are now legal. They should do the same for all miners as there can be no confidence in their convictions due to the Thatcher’s Government abandonment of both moral and legal responsibilities in waging war on mining communities.
I write this as an SNP member who joined to further social justice at an individual, community and national level, so now stand for those principles. Pardon the miners!!
Robert Doig
Bo’ness
THE Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU would not obviously appear to necessarily be a friend to public services or particularly offer new opportunities to small and medium-sized entrepreneurs.
It does, however, clarify certain protections for foreign investor companies – something which is already available within international law.
Ratification will be required by 28 countries (including the UK) and 10 regional parliaments of which Holyrood, without further devolved powers, will not be one. In terms of free trade it potentially opens up further investment opportunities for EU businesses and tariff-free trading in, for example, grain importation, something which might prove relevant in any future independence campaign.
Peter Gorrie
Edinburgh
Letters II: No easy resolution of the dilemma facing Ewan McGregor
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