I AGREE with Kevin McKenna, (Manners fall by the wayside in any debate about abortion, October 19, The National). The independent Scotland I want to live in will be one in which a variety of opinions, beliefs and ways of living are embraced. I can’t really understand why Christians have not defended their beliefs more strongly than they have except, perhaps, because of the castigation and derision which would be heaped upon them. I say: "Well done, Mr McKenna!" for raising your head above the parapet.
Lovina Roe
Perth
KEVIN McKenna has a fair cheek. As a middle-aged male Christian he knows perfectly well he has no right whatsoever to comment on the matter of abortion. That The National should give space to his reactionary views assuredly compounds the offence.
Alan Clayton
Argyll
THERE’S every reason to fear abortion devolution. On issues such as abortion and euthanasia Scotland seems to be the most uncaring section of the UK. There is much talk of women’s rights but none of the rights of the unborn child. What right have we to kill children who cannot protest or those who feel their life is no longer worth living because we do not give them the care they deserve?
These aren’t party political issues. These are issues about what we see as decent humanity and they cross party lines.
Catriona Grigg
Embo
THE main thrust of Kevin McKenna’s piece seems to be that everything should be up for debate, with all voices included. Great. But surely debate implies reason, with contributors whose minds are open to change or to accommodation with others. His belief about the "inviolate right to life of the unborn child" doesn’t appear open to debate. It seems more an article of faith. He also says, albeit sarcastically, that "being anti-abortion means you hate women". Given that the alternative is dangerous backstreet procedures or forced pregnancy, perhaps it does. Being brought into the world unwanted, perhaps it means you "hate" children too. I don’t think he hates either; I would like to see how he would square the problem of the conflicting rights of the woman and the child.
Thomas Black
Bishopbriggs
SO often we hear how good ideas, even with the full support of Holyrood, cannot be turned into reality simply because the power lies at Westminster. What would really happen if we went ahead with such policies regardless, a bit like the old newspaper men who said: "print and be damned"? What realistically could the Westminster Government do, threaten to cut off all diplomatic relationship with the Scottish Government? Most want that anyway. Send a gun boat up the Forth or Clyde? I think the reaction to that would be instant UDI. If Cameron is not willing to respect the wishes of the Scottish people maybe it is time for the Scottish Government to simply follow the wishes of the Scottish people, and if no understanding between the nations could be found the Scottish Government should simply go ahead anyway. If nothing else it would bring matters to a head.
Walter Hamilton
Elie
IF indeed "a senior SNP source" told BBC Five Live there would be no referendum until support for independence reached 60 per cent, that person was being incredibly foolish to give such a hostage to fortune to the Unionists ('60 per cent must back independence' before SNP will consider another referendum, The National, October 19). We already know how they exploit "once in a generation" and convert it to "once in a lifetime", so giving out any figures like this is plain daft. If 55 per cent can be described by the Unionists as decisive why are we raising the bar even higher for ourselves? I hope the senior SNP source is able to refute the BBC claim.
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
"SENIOR SNP sources" are out spinning a new trigger for another referendum: 60 per cent opinion poll support for independence over a sustained period. No plan or timescale for meeting that trigger emerged from the SNP conference, raising suspicions that independence had been parked once again. To counter that threat, the 60 per cent target should become a key performance indicator on Sturgeon’s tenure as leader: rising support for independence should strengthen her position, falling should threaten it.
Calum Miller
Prestonpans
IAN McCulloch (Letters, October 19) suggests that we need not worry too much about democracy in the SNP and the leadership will provide the correct result in the long run. He says the vote on fracking wasn't close at 550 to 427, however this ignores the debate where every speaker, except for government spokespeople, was totally opposed to fracking. The delegate from
Leith explained how they had submitted a resolution calling for a total ban and were surprised to see it fundamentally changed to support government policy of a moratorium.
Even New Labour in its prime never attempted this travesty of conference fixing.The vote of 550 to 427 was carried because the delegate for Leith pleaded for it to be carried despite the change, plus a powerful speech from Tommy Sheppard MP who said basically we are all against fracking and we will adopt this position at the end of the moratorium.
The influence of the Conference Arrangements Committee were felt all over the conference. Over 170 resolutions were submitted but only 24 were placed on the agenda, over half of them from parliamentarians, many of them bland and non-controversial (incidentally, why should MPs have the right to submit resolutions?) Most of the radical motions and amendments on fracking, TTIP, land reform were omitted or changed. Finally the elephants in the room were ignored: independence and Nato. Are we to believe there were no motions on either submitted?
Yes, the fact that the land reform resolution was remitted was a healthy sign that the membership are more radical than the leadership. However, to paraphrase the old saying: "the price of internal party democracy is eternal vigilance by the members"!
Hugh Kerr
Edinburgh
"WE would view any consultation as one step in a long process," writes Sarah-Jane Laing of Scottish Land & Estates (Letters, October 17) on the Land Reform Bill. Hearing stories of tenant farmers facing eviction from farms they have invested heavily into, one wonders how drawn out this "long process" can be.
The following letter was printed in the North British Daily Mail as a desperate plea for help for Border villagers and I feel it is worth reprinting. The crofts referred to are their two or four acre fields: "Landlordism at Newcastleton: Sir, I know not if the Duke and his party are aware of the sorrow and sadness that are filling the hearts and homes of many in this place, because of the unjust and arbitrary treatment they are receiving in having their crofts taken away from them,which are in a large measure their means of livelihood.
"It is only some months since these crofters were quieted and comforted by the Duke prolonging their lease for 35 years.
But now that... the election is over (the Duke's son had just stood for election as the local MP),the factor comes down and takes the crofts from them. There is strong proof,whatever the factor says,that when the houses were built, land was given with each,with freedom to sell or let,and now it is only by usurped power that such right is denied.
"A man toils for years on his croft, draining, liming, and manuring, and turns what was a peat moss or brown bent into a fruitful field. When he gets so old that he cannot work it, he lets it. Now, he is not only letting the field,but also his invested labour and capital; or if he dies,his widow will continue to work away most diligently with it until infirmities compel her to stop.
"Then she lets the croft. Often this is all she has left to live on. Say,is it not very unjust for her now to be deprived of her property.Today there are not a few here who are being so treated; and the hearts of nearly all the villagers are burning with indignation. All that an outsider can do is pray 'God help them'. If you will kindly publish this letter perhaps it may bring some one to their assistance."
This was published on the 2nd of November 1895. Scotland is still waiting for brave land reform change to help those who make the greatest social, economic and environmental contribution for the true benefit of a sharing society. Well done to SNP members and heroic campaigners who keep the light of hope shining.
Carol McManus
Edinburgh
MSPs set out their stalls on opposite sides as devolution of abortion law moves closer
The National View: We should not shy away from debate on abortion law
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