CAN any of your readers suggest a cure for my continuing hope that Question Time might become an intelligent forum for the discussion of national and international affairs? On Thursday night I tuned in with my usual optimism, only to have my hopes dashed as the panel members and the audience displayed their typical ignorances and prejudices.
As usual the subject of Brexit came up, and the standard positions were highlighted:
- The country voted to leave and so leave we must. Not a single mention of the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.
- The EU is hell-bent on punishing GB, which is a nation par excellence and will not be dictated to. The jingoism was palpable, even if deluded. The UK is the leaving party and is in no position to dictate terms to the other 27.
It was really depressing to witness the extent of the “little Englander” mentality that prevailed throughout the discussion.
For me, however, the most disturbing aspect was the discussion on the tragedy of Syria. The columnist from the Sunday Express shamelessly suggested that GB had been most generous in taking in 23,000 refugees from Syria, and even worse the audience responded with a great outburst of proud and patriotic clapping. Statistics are often misleading but I do believe that the number of refugees from the Syrian conflict is somewhere between 5,000,000 and 7,000,000. There was absolutely no mention of UK reneging on the Dubs Amendment – the promise to take in unaccompanied children from Calais.
By the end of the programme I was left with two impressions: only fools and horses watch Question Time, and David Dimbleby is useless.
I have nothing in common with England and I want out of this farce of a Union. It is my earnest hope that the SNP leadership will initiate indyref2 before the end of this year, and that they will prepare for another forced General Election within the same timeframe. Should a snap General Election be called we must fight it on the basis that an SNP (or Green) vote is a vote for independence. For the sake of our country we have to forget any need for Westminster consent to hold another referendum – it will not be forthcoming! Let’s get the job done!!
J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg
THE EU has an impeccable sense of timing. Just as the No 10 “war cabinet” meets at Chequers to come to a final decision on its three-basket proposal to the EU, the EU indicates this is unacceptable.
This was to be expected. No cherry-picking, the four freedoms still apply and one is either in or out! Finally, it reinforces the earlier point made by Michel Barnier that you must accept the consequences of your decision to leave.
Where Theresa May stands now is debatable. The basket-case approach to the whole process since invoking Article 50 now rebounds ironically on the three arch Brexiteers, Davis, Fox and Johnson.
Theresa May’s speech next week will likely add nothing substantive to the issues, as details and legally binding texts are outstanding from the removal stage of Brexit on the Irish border issue. As Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh said recently of the May Cabinet, it is like the “blind leading the bland like a collection of helpless hillwalkers up the Matterhorn”!
Theresa May’s moment while hill-walking in Wales led to her decision to have an election to return a strong and stable government.
We await the strong and stable Brexit outcome after the Chequers sojourn. Or will the Cabinet still be at “war” with itself? Yet, the EU has already put down a marker on the “three-basket” wish: “Non!”
John Edgar
Stewarton
MONICA Povil’s letter about the dangers of “fusion whisky” and the need to protect our invaluable Scotch whisky product raises questions for me about the role of the Scotch Whisky Association (Letters, February 23).
Just what is its function, if not to safeguard the international image of one of Scotland’s iconic products? Does it have no power to control the purity of our national drink? Or is it no more than a trade association for foreign owners seeking short-term profits from the latest drink fad?
It certainly seems strangely silent on such major issues as Monica raises, as well as on the labelling practises of our large online retailers.
Peter Craigie
Edinburgh
BRYAN Clark (Letters, February 20), Sadie Brown and Allan Hendry (Letters, February 22) all make valid points about litter by our roadsides across Scotland. Keep Scotland Beautiful audits have revealed that litter levels are at their worst in a decade, with roadsides being amongst the most affected.
More than 96 per cent of motorways and A class verges have some litter on them, and that’s no surprise when more than half of Scottish adults have seen someone throw litter from a vehicle, despite it being illegal.
Now, 18 months into an anti-roadside litter campaign, Keep Scotland Beautiful is encouraging everyone to give their litter a lift and take litter home. We know that litter impacts on road safety, environmental quality and the economy – and 88 per cent of us agree that it also creates a negative impression of our beautiful country. The reality is that it is costing us dearly, and litter doesn’t stay on the roadside. It can end up in the places we really care for – our rivers, parks and beaches. We’ve all identified the problem – the time for action is now.
Carole Noble
Operations Director, Keep Scotland Beautiful
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel