THE fact that only 0.25% of those turning up at polling stations in last May’s elections hardly seems to be a useful measure of the impact of voter ID when there is a non-participation rate of 30% or more.
If your enthusiasm was at the lower end of the 70% who could be bothered to go to the polling station, and you were faced with another hurdle to jump before being allowed through the door, the chances are pretty high that you’d simply decide it wasn’t worth the effort.
There is an argument that if you’re not prepared to make a bit of effort you probably don’t have enough interest in the political process and don’t deserve a vote, but that doesn’t seem to fit very well with the aims of universal suffrage. It raises the suspicion that the proponents of voter ID would be quite happy to return to the property-owning qualification for joining the electoral roll.
READ MORE: Tories 'trying to block Scottish votes' as poll shows confusion over voter ID rules
If everyone required a national ID card, as they do in many functioning democracies, the whole issue would simply vanish, but the same people pushing for voter ID are often the ones most vociferous in their objections to national ID. A bit of consistency wouldn’t go amiss.
Surely a committed democracy would be making an effort to encourage more of the missing 30% into the process rather than trying to push people out of it? That, of course, would entail politicians making some effort to engage the public with reasoned arguments rather than relying on soundbites about “GDP growth”, “tax burden” and “fiscal headroom”, without ever explaining exactly what these things mean for our daily lives and exactly how their policies are going to influence them.
Cameron Crawford
Rothesay
I WAS a member of the Labour Party for many years, and during all of that time I was opposed to nuclear weapons, as the majority of Scottish Labour Party members were at that time.
Of course I, and many thousands of other people, left the Labour Party long ago and many of us can’t recognise the creature it has now become. Sir Keir Starmer is now saying that Trident will be the bedrock of his new Labour government’s defence policy.
READ MORE: Does Keir Starmer really think he’d have power to press the button?
Now what does that mean exactly? Does it mean that he is going to spend billions of pounds more on new nuclear weapons from the US, which the UK Government will not have complete control over, and that he will run down our conventional forces in order to find the money for this? Or has he discovered that the UK can provide funding for projects which it requires so that he can keep up spending on conventional forces as well?
We need to know, because if the UK runs down its conventional forces any further we will not need to worry about being invaded by Russia or China, we will need to be ready to defend ourselves against Iceland in case they invade the UK if we have another cod war.
The stupid idea that we can be defended by threatening other countries that we are prepared to kill millions of people with nuclear weapons if we don’t get our way is not a defence policy, it’s childish nonsense and dangerous. Just how low can the once great Labour Party sink?
Andy Anderson
Ardrossan
RAF Typhoons shooting down Iranian drones, not targeted at the UK Crown possession in Cyprus – was this not an act of war against Iran? The USA’s policy of the complete destabilisation of Middle Eastern states considered a “threat” to Israel is well established, with only Iran still a problem as a threat.
What is worrying is the insidious control the lobby group “Friends of Israel” now hold over whichever UK party makes up the next UK Government and the “donation influence” it is able to provide on behalf of the current rogue state of Israel.
READ MORE: Watch as Mhairi Black takes on Tory hypocrisy over Iran's attack on Israel
Of course when the current situation with Israel and Ukraine tips over into a global conflict,
the political donors will all be safe while young people are sent to die at their bidding.
The UK has a military struggling to find recruits of the calibre they need. Modern weapon systems need people with decent educational qualifications; the lead time for officers is around three years to handle modern integrated combat systems, and a couple more to create an effective combat pilot. The bottom line is that even if you could magically produce all the officers and manpower required for a global conflict, the UK military is mainly equipped with planes, ships and armour designed in the 1990s for the expected battles of the early 2000s.
The only “modern” kit is the F35 VSTOL; everything else has had bits bolted on or added to increase their survival chances in the current expected battlefield. I would hope the UK Joint Chiefs of Staff are ensuring the weakened state of the UK armed forces is bashed into 10 Downing Street on a daily basis.
I am equally certain “donor money” talks louder and neither Sunak nor Starmer will pay any heed, in which case we need to practice puckering up and kissing our bahookies goodbye.
Peter Thomson
via email
MANY people have given their opinions on the importance of the closure of Grangemouth to jobs and Scotland’s economy. Importing fuel into an oil-rich Scotland during our transition to green energy is crazy. I understand the UK Government will be subsidising a new Ineos plant in Belgium. The UK seems intent on crippling Scotland’s economy. It only shows our impotence without independence. The only bonus will be the end of any influence of the oligarch Jim Ratcliffe, the man who wanted to frack in Scotland’s Central Belt.
READ MORE: Tories challenged over support for foreign Ineos project despite Grangemouth closure
Where are the Scottish Tory voices in protest about the closure? Their outrage seems restricted to attacking every piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Government – assisted of course, by a complicit media.
The UK’s willingness to invest in the new Ineos refinery in Belgium rather than make every effort to keep Grangemouth open shows precisely their attitude to Scotland.
The UK took us out of the EU against our will. Then they invest in an EU country to our detriment. Is this what they meant by “levelling up”? Don’t expect an explanation from Ross or Jack any time soon.
James Arthur
Paisley
RISHI Sunak urges the world to show restraint in the Middle East. So what the hell were our RAF doing interfering in shooting down missiles and drones?
This is nothing to do with Britain. If you don’t want to use the RAF to shoot down Russian missiles in Ukraine, then stop showing hypocrisy and double standards in the Middle East!
We have no right to be interfering and it’s surely a gross misuse of our assets.
Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen
I WRITE to thank Owen Jones for his article on Saturday’s paper (Gaza horrors will go on until West ends its complicity, Apr 14). Really shocking to read how Israel is behaving in Gaza and Palestine, and how the West is complicit in this, and should be held to account.
Norman Robertson
via email
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