SIR Tom Hunter has said it is time for Scotland to ‘move on’ from the referendum. He might as well have said ‘I’m all right, Jack!’ as he urged his fellow Scots to build a ‘wealthier and fairer’ society by accepting their lot as determined by the present devolution settlement.
Does he believe that we have a Westminster Government that is remotely concerned with building a fairer society? Does he believe that the Scotland Bill reflects the spirit of the Smith Commission, never mind the general election result in Scotland? Does he believe that the hardship being created by Iain Duncan Smith’s DWP is building a fairer country?
Does he believe that the new Trades Union legislation will allow workers to get a fairer deal from employers? Does he really believe that a Cabinet dominated by a small elite group is contributing towards a fairer society?
During the referendum he told us that he was unable to decide whether to vote Yes or No, so he commissioned a report to allow him to make a judgement. Does he require another to persuade him that the actions of a Tory Government, supported by less than a quarter of the electorate, are clearly designed to cement the power of the few against the betterment of the many? David Mundell echoes Hunter in his exhortation to Scots to accept that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people, then proceeds to denigrate the First Minister and the nationalist movement. This from the lone Tory MP out of 59 MPs.
These two gentlemen represent the democratic deficit faced by the people of Scotland. One, rich as Croesus, commissions others to provide a report supporting the status quo that maintains his position, while the other, Nelson-like, ignores the political reality in his own country to do the bidding of his masters in an echo of a Moscow-controlled satellite from the old USSR.
James Mills
Johnstone
WHEN Sir Tom says it’s time to ‘move on’, I wonder to where he is meaning. More of the same, or worse? With so much unfinished business, to me it sounds like he’s trying to stifle debate about how we create a better Scotland. It puts me in mind of those old Tories who somehow thought they were apolitical and neutral - something the BBC seems to be falling into by insisting on calling Jeremy Corbyn ‘left-wing’ but having no such prefix for Cameron.
Linda Patrick
Falkirk
THE Scottish Parliament is to be congratulated on voting to pass the British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill into law yesterday.
The passage of the Bill marks an historic moment for deaf children, their families and the entire deaf community across Scotland, many of whom have British Sign Language as their first and preferred language.As the first Bill of its kind in the UK, the Bill will aim to embed the language more fully into Scottish society and culture by ensuring public authorities promote and raise awareness of it.
The National Deaf Children’s Society hopes this ground-breaking legislation will become a foundation for the promotion of the language in Scotland long into the future.We strongly believe that if fully implemented the Bill will ultimately help create more choices and opportunities for deaf children and young people and help them achieve their full potential.
The challenge is now for the Scottish Government to set out an ambitious National Plan that will drive progress for deaf children and their families like closing the education attainment gap and strengthening early years support.
The National Deaf Children’s Society is committed to working in partnership across the sector to support the implementation of the Bill in every way that we can.
Heather Gray
National Deaf Children’s Society (Scotland & Northern Ireland)
PETER Craigie is so right to state ‘there is much Scotland can do, given the political will’ in response to claims that ‘you can’t trump geography’ in regards to high costs of living in remote areas (Letters, September 17). For a start, what is remote now was not always so. Liddesdale, covering an area similar to the former counties of Linlithgow or Clackmannanshire, has but one village now, but historical records from English raiding parties say there may have been up to 16 or 17 villages in the past.
A civil engineer of the time, William Hall,wrote that in Scotland over 42000 agricultural labourers lost their jobs, and presumably mostly their country home, between 1880 and 1900 alone. Whilst there remained, around 1900, just one person per 36.5acres in Liddesdale, 46 per cent of Scots lived at this time in overcrowded homes— the figure for England and Wales was eight per cent.
In London one in seven lived in overcrowded conditions. In Manchester it was one in 16, Edinburgh one in three, in Glasgow and Dundee one in two. Pleas for more land to rent went unanswered for many generations.
When there was again great increases in rents and feus, agitation was so great a House of Commons committee was set up to look into the matter in 1894.
The committee report declared that such a situation where landlords repeatedly refused to give up land for industrial purposes, houses or allotments could only lead to the decay of the town or village. They declared this was ‘a public evil’ demanding remedy by legislation.
What did writers of the time,a hundred years ago, see as a solution? Only abolition of the House of Lords and revolution. Will there ever be a better time than now to find the political will to turn the tables with the likes of differing taxes on land.
Surely the will must be found in respect for those people forced over generations to work their fingers to the bone to pay off prohibitive, soul-destroying, rents or feus, and the desecration of once-flourishing productive arable land supplying cheaper and healthy food.
Caroline McManus
Edinburgh
WITH the first anniversary of the rejection of Scottish independence upon us, the nationalist surge continues. Some have taken to social media where I have been called a ‘Nawbag’, a ‘coffin dodger’ (I’m 32) who is ‘feert of change’ and have been told to do something rather unpleasant with a ‘red hot haggis’.
Most individuals who want an independent Scotland are not like this, but there is a sizeable minority of ‘cybernats’ out there who propagate an anti-English and anti-establishment/state ideology that paints a very ugly picture.
The ‘Freedom’ rally in Glasgow will be filled with jubilant, crass flag-waving, despite this being contrary to the referendum result. This is the core of nationalism. It must appeal to ‘imagined communities’ not rooted in history or genealogy but in the glorious falsified past. Symbols of British ‘oppression’ must be abhorred without any discussion of the wider historical context.
Westminster is portrayed as being a hive of heartless, war-mongering ‘toffs’ who are to blame for every fault in Scotland’s recent history. On the other hand, nationalist politicians are treated with subservient reverence and are beyond reproach.
I don’t want Scotland to turn into a nation where a party with a divisive ideology dominate all layers of politics, where a cohort of politicians can do no wrong and where bonds of union and commonality are shattered for the sake of the Saltire.This is why I voted No last year.
David Bone
Girvan
IN your article Call to halt demolition of Red Road (The National, September 7) it reads as if I was suggesting that as part of the solution to the refugee crisis I was calling for the demolition of Red Road flats to be abandoned to house people fleeing from Syria.
This is absolutely not the case. The buildings are clearly now in a state prepared for demolition – but I was asked a series of hypothetical questions about the sense of using Red Road for refugees if the buildings had not been completely gutted and were wind and water tight with all utilities intact. In those circumstance they could be considered for the settlement of refugees and asylum seekers as they have been in the past.
The feasibility point I made was intended to highlight that point and not suggest a future for the building of any kind. I wanted to re-assure your readers and my constituents that I am absolutely not calling for any u-turn and am fully aware of the state of the buildings and wanted to clear that up.
Anne McLaughlin MP
Glasgow North East
The National View: Why we're still Yes ... and will fight on
Letters to The National, September 18: Should we 'move on' from the indyref and accept our lot?
Jeanne Freeman: The indyref created a space to reinvigorate gender politics
Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp: The battle may have been lost but not the war
Sturgeon tells Cameron he’s ‘on borrowed time’ as she calls for PM to listen to Scotland’s voice
Patrick Harvie: We must do things differently next time around
Project Fear: Story of how the Better Together campaign nearly fell apart
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