IDEALISTS and thinkers make revolutions – hard and ruthless leaders consolidate them. In any venture, whether political or otherwise, once a revolutionary concept has been accepted the ruthless will drive it to a conclusion, but if idealists seek to modify the direction chosen by the ruthless, challenge their conclusion or criticise their decisions then they will be persecuted, vilified and removed.

This has been the characteristic of UK politics since Margaret Thatcher. If you are not “one of us” then you are out – and that applies to both major Westminster parties.

Britain at all levels is run by sociopaths – in politics, in business, and particularly in the media, and this is why so many inadequates find an outlet in the press and radio.

The Westminster party system has become all-controlling, with the leaderships exercising strict centralisation over selection of candidates and determination of policy right down through the party to local level. Witness the Scottish Labour Party suspending all its councillors in Aberdeen for forming a coalition with the Tories after no party gained overall control. Now, I bow to no-one in my loathing of Tories, but the politicians elected in Aberdeen were elected to make decisions for Aberdeen and local elections become meaningless in a situation where those elected locally are forbidden to make decisions by a centralised bureaucracy.

Such control freakery is the legacy of Thatcher and Blair, both demonstrable sociopaths, who exercised centralised control over their parties, suppressing opposition to their leadership and driving people out of the party while denying them any influence.

A central characteristic of modern politics in Britain is that the concept of opposition is no longer deemed legitimate: there are no opponents any more, only enemies. Thatcher and Blair recognised enemies within their parties – and enemies have to be destroyed or removed. As a result, both Labour and the Tories were intellectually cleansed, with any talent that existed being culled and suppressed.

When Thatcher and Blair finally left office, they left their parties devoid of talent, with no-one of stature to replace them. All that was left were the groupies, the fawning snivelling sycophants, the grovellers and intellectual inadequates.

In Scotland we have the spectacle of Rape Clause Ruth. If you witness this caricature of a politician discussing the SNP, you will witness pure hatred. She is lauded by our press as having a form of political talent, but in reality she has no substance, she is a walking soundbite who simply mouths repetitive slogans: an example of how someone devoid of talent and intellect can rise to the top. Her alter-ego is of course Kezia, who is different and is probably quite a nice person, but is hopelessly inadequate and barely competent, parachuted into the leadership of a party that is devoid of talent, direction and any form of intellectual ability.

This is the real legacy of Thatcher and Blair. In our party system people rise to the top because they are malleable and prepared to say anything and take any course of action to enhance their influence. They have no ethical centre, are amoral and, most importantly, they have no shame, no self-respect – those qualities that cause a person with decency and dignity to pause and consider.

In modern society we have a fundamental problem: the paradox of tolerance. How much tolerance must we continue to show towards the intolerant? This is the same problem I discussed in an earlier letter with respect to free speech: how much free speech must we continue to allow the enemies of free speech?

We must confront the political elite, stand up to them and tell them – No more. Our freedom is increasingly dependent on it.
Peter Kerr
Address supplied

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Trump’s ‘splendid’ isolationism must not be followed

THE US withdrawal from the Paris climate accord is clearly deeply disappointing, symptomatic of President Trump’s desire for US “splendid isolationism” as it pursues its narrow agenda.

Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement means the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases will exit the international effort to address dangerous global warming. It joins Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not party to it. We all share the same responsibility to defend and make our planet great again, but we have a small handful of nations who have taken the decision to reject the future.

What is even more disturbing is the failure of the UK to sign up to the joint statement with leaders of France, Germany and Italy, affirming a commitment to implement the Paris climate agreement and combat climate change.

This is a sad day for the global community, and with Brexit and the subservience of Ms May to the US, the UK is worryingly heading in a similarly isolationist direction.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh

PATRICK Harvie raises an issue of paramount importance to us all but one which has been barely mentioned by any leading politician during current election debates (Trump is not alone in risking the future of our planet, The National, June 2).

As a hill shepherd 60 years ago I watched the flooding of a pristine Highland strath and wrote: “Survival is rate of change versus rate of adaption. We are modifying the environment at a rate beyond the adaptive capacity of many species, perhaps our own.” It might seem I had a point.

Harvie writes: “Climate change represents one of the most profound challenges for our society, our economy and indeed for the future of our civilisation.”

Other politicians could take a better informed, long-term stance, rather than deal in short-term expedient issues for party gain. Please Glasgow voters, send a sane voice down to Westminster for the sake of future generations.
Iain R Thomson
Strathglass

YOUR article (Blueprint points the way to £290bn revenue boost for oil and gas sector, The National, June 1) states that Oil & Gas UK predicted revenues from oil and gas of £290 billion over the next 20 years. The UK Government took around £300bn from the Scottish North Sea over a period of 40 years. Oil & Gas UK are predicting nearly the same figure again in Scottish oil revenues over a 20-year period, based on the best-case scenario.

It is not clear whether this £290bn in revenue is coming from whatever oil remains in the Scottish North Sea or whether the projected revenue figure includes the Scottish Atlantic Margin oil and gas off the west coast of Scotland. Only half the oil in the Scottish North Sea has been extracted to date which produced £300bn in revenues, so the projected figure of £290bn would be about right for what oil remains in the Scottish North Sea. If the projected £290bn does not include the massive Scottish Atlantic Margin reserves then this projection over 20 years is way too low. Double or treble that figure when it comes to the Scottish Atlantic Margin.

Even if we settle for the £290bn projection over 20 years, this does not sound like “turbo-charged austerity” in an independent Scotland – more like turbo-charged wealth.
William C McLaughlin
Biggar

THE postman arrived bearing a very interesting business looking letter for me – one actually with a real stamp on it. How many of these do you get nowadays? Inside was a letter, on what was obviously trying to mimic House of Commons notepaper, headed “THE RT HON RUTH DAVIDSON MSP”. It was obviously intended for me as a personal message – and it also contained my reference number on the Electoral Register in minute print down in the corner!

It asks me to vote Conservative and mentions the apparently faltering Scottish economy, challenges in education, struggling hospitals and, of course, “The SNP’s desire to re-run the 2014 independence referendum”. Not a single mention of anything relevant to the coming election.
George M Mitchell
Dunblane