PAUL Kavanagh thinks “Scotland’s media is just as imbalanced as RT” which, he says, promotes “fake news”. I would agree that Scotland’s media is unbalanced – we have plenty of evidence to support that. So could Paul provide similar evidence about RT?
I get the impression he never watches the channel. If he had he would have seen a genuine desire to provide news which is both balanced and informative – covering many of the stories which are denied airtime in the UK. Neither does RT stifle views which may not sit well with the Russian government. On the latest Alex Salmond Show, for instance, the man himself interviewed Peter Tatchell who stated, among other things, that Russia was a “lawless police state”. There was no editing and no suppression of Peter’s views.
READ MORE: Letters – Shameful anniversary a reminder to reverse cuts to social security
Continuing on the theme of balance – Paul asks us to believe the foreign minister of Lithuania who accuses Russia of being responsible for the recent nerve agent attack. This accusation comes from a Russophobe in a country of Russophobes and extreme right-wing views. (Lithuania has been accused of being a collaborationist state during the war – its fascist militias responsible for the murder of 95 per cent of its Jewish population.) I say this as someone who has Lithuanian ancestry.
For the sake of fairness could Paul provide a balancing viewpoint on this accusation, please? There are plenty of independent experts around who do not believe the evidence-free “it was Russia” narrative and who are asking for a full and proper independent investigation.
I love Paul’s writing – but I have noticed his own Russophobia creeping in from time to time – unbalancing what would otherwise have been fair and balanced articles.
Frank Rodgers
Glasgow
CONCERNING Russia, and Putin in particular, I have to agree with the notion that real evidence is needed and not just circumstantial evidence before going public with guilty verdicts. The Novichock chemical agent, named after the scientist who invented it, is not so uncommon and can be put together, apparently, in a garage workshop. The Porton Down people are obviously familiar with the chemical, otherwise how would they have been able to verify it.
Surprisingly to myself, I agree with Jeremy Corbyn in that more factual evidence concerning the Novichock chemical used, actually came from Russia and was administered by a Russian agent. We do not need another Cold War with Russia based on hearsay, least of all from Theresa May. She is playing the Tony Blair ticket while trying to be as clever as that other erstwhile female Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, when war was declared over the Falkland Islands.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
THERE were two major flaws in the SNP-led independence referendum debate of 2013/14.
If an independent Scotland is to be a sovereign country, we cannot be beholden to Brussels. We see on our TV screens every day how Brussels treats the UK with a population of 60 million. How do you think they will treat Scotland with a population of six million?
We should be out of the EU.
Nicola Sturgeon misjudged the timing of her threat of indyref2 and the SNP have been screaming like a Stuka dive bomber ever since as they lost altitude and popularity. Desperate times call for desperate measures and Nicola Sturgeon has opposed Brexit and Theressa May at every turn.
This has distracted the Scottish Government from the affairs of Scotland. Last week we had the European Union (Legal Continuity) Bill pushed through Parliament as an emergency Bill in 11 hours of scrutiny. This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland in 2018 or 2019.
It is a political expedient to draw attention from the failures of the administration to address the problems of Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament costs the Scottish taxpayer £56,250 per hour while it is in session. The 11 hours of parliamentary time devoted to this unnecessary legislation cost £618,750.00
Money that could have been spent on something tangible for the people of Scotland. Not eleven hours of hot air.
John Black
Helensburgh
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