THERE are striking similarities between the state broadcaster and the state. We have BBC Scotland, BBC Northern Ireland and BBC Wales but no BBC England. Similarly we have the Scottish Parliament and the assemblies for Wales and Nothern Ireland but no English parliament.
Why should English people be disenfranchised? I’m all for an English Parliament that has fully devolved responsibility for education, environment, health and so on — they really are missing out.
Perhaps there is a glimmer of understanding about this anomaly when tuning in to the Great British Broadcasting Breakfast News. After the state broadcaster’s programme ads, there is a short attempt at subliminal Unionism during the continuity Christmas jingle that promotes “togetherness” and “oneness”.
So far so good, but we are then fed a diet of English news and English sport. To be fair there is a three-minute opt-out at the end of each half hour for the regions and nations where there is ample time for the headlines and weather.
There is no BBC England and there is no English parliament, it is in effect Unionism in name only aided and abetted by Aunty Beeb. The three Celtic nations are unwittingly taking part in the Great British Unionist con game. As in all successful confidence tricks, it only works if you don’t know you’ve been conned, but there is an increasing number of people who are seeing through it. And then you have the Scottish Labour party’s continued attempt at flogging the dead horse of federalism.
How so when there are only three administrations and a British parliament? It might work if there was an English parliament as well and then there would be four state governments and a federal government. I wouldn’t put my house on that ever happening.
There is one glaring option open to us all: let’s just get the heck out of this non-Union.
Mike Herd
Highland
ALEX Salmond was roundly criticised by the Tories and Labour for agreeing to produce a television show for RT, the Russian state television propaganda network. They angrily alleged that he was degrading the office of First Minister by taking Putin’s shilling and lending legitimacy to an authoritarian, undemocratic regime.
Oddly, there was deafening silence from these very same Tories when it was revealed last week that ex-Prime Minister David Cameron is to lead “a new UK-China bilateral investment fund”, thereby presumably degrading the office of Prime Minister by taking Xi’s shilling and lending legitimacy to an authoritarian, undemocratic regime.
Labour’s own Tony Blair, meanwhile, continues to be an exemplar of the morally upstanding former leader, becoming a multi-millionaire by advising dictators and despots in Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates, Rwanda and Egypt.
Perhaps their manufactured outrage would be more convincing if their hypocrisy were not so blatant.
David Kelly
Dunblane
WHILE Ken Gilmore (Letters, December 6) has a point in that it is debatable that air pollution is increased by driving at 20mph and such a limit would increase air pollution. Some say yes, others say no (the torque of a modern car is quite enough to potter around in fourth gear, fifth even. The engine is just ticking over).
However, it’s about the kinetic equation ... there is no argument that a slower speed limit will save lives. Lives that would not be lost because of day-to-day carbon monoxide poisoning, but because someone was driving too fast. I can putter along in an old car, in fourth, at 15mph through the school grounds, with speed bumps. No excuse for speeding. Better arrive alive.
M McLaren-Dow
Address supplied
I HAVE to echo the views of Dr Mary Brown’s friend, Mr B (Letters, December 15). With my previous daily newspaper I took to only tackling the “difficult” Sudoko puzzle, as the standard one was too easy. However, with The National I find the “medium” puzzle harder than the other paper’s difficult one! If readers of The National possess a higher level of intelligence, I’m obviously not in that group!
Ian Baillie
Alexandria
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