I HAVE since the New Year been pondering the “refugee crisis” which played out in English Channel over the festive period.
It’s only on reflection of the events, and replaying in one’s mind what was said in the media (British Biased Conservative News) and most certainly by the present incumbent of the post of Home Secretary in the current Wasteminster Tory Farce – sorry, I meant debacle, no I meant to say government, but that isn’t what they are either, is it?
When The Right Horrible Member of Parliament Sajid Javid popped up, all flustered at having to cut short (as the Tory press office, formerly known as the BBC put it) a “luxury break” due to two score of desperate people landing on the shores of the “New Jerusalem”, I listened to the rising rhetoric about this just being the start of the influx because, as it was portrayed, asylum seekers have been informed by the human traffickers that after Brexit is achieved there will be no more illegal landings allowed on England’s green an pleasant land.
I’m mindful that a previous King of England named Cnut proved that no power on earth can turn back a tide (human or otherwise?).
I then listened to the argument/proposal that by placing cutters/frigates in place, you were actually encouraging “illegal immigrants” by having vessels there?
So by saying this, the current UK Government is proposing that the sanctioned drowning of men, women and children is an acceptable policy, if it could be considered a deterrent to potential refugees?
This is just one of the myriad of Tory ideological thinking that makes every compassionate person sick to one’s very soul!
Sandy Allan
Newburgh, Ellon
I THANK Lovina Roe for her reply to my letter (Letters, January 12) and also Robert Anderson and Douglas Turner (Letters, January 13) for their responses.
I am still somewhat concerned about an independent Scotland adrift in a hostile world without close friends who can be relied on in times of need. The Republic of Ireland has shown that it can withstand the bullying from England because it has the backing of the other EU nations. If this backing were non-existent, would the Irish be as confident about holding their own in the face of an onslaught from the English elite? It is this group which will try to control Scotland even after independence.
To me, to say that we will do well working to WTO rules smacks of Liam Fox striking trade deals with consummate ease once we are free of the EU yoke.
Lovina mentions “multi-national companies moving in to use the country’s natural resources”. I fail to see what this has to do with the EU. Surely these companies are invited by the government of the country, in our case the UK Government at Westminster.
It has been suggested that US companies will be invited post-Brexit to take over our NHS and no doubt become involved in other areas of our lives, seemingly both to our advantage and detriment depending who you listen to. This will have nothing to do with the EU. Currently the EU does not involve itself in the running of this country. We accept certain rules in order to function with ease within the EU “club”. It was our government at Westminster that sold out the fishermen, and look very likely to do so again.
I am in my 70s, and in whatever time I have left I should like to see a functioning independent Scotland where my children and grandchildren are not struggling to make a living and have a future worth looking forward to.
To become “independent” within the EU or EFTA would mean we would have ready-made agreements which could be implemented immediately, rather than drag out the whole process for many years giving great uncertainty to businesses and individuals.
I see that approach as being anti-independence because it would give succour to the Better Together crowd who would expect to benefit from that uncertainty, especially after this Brexit fiasco.
Robert Mitchell
Stirling
SORRY to be blunt, but when Lovina Roe (Letters, January 14) says that the EU demands its members to cede 100% of their sovereignty, it’s hard to take her views seriously.
Overstatement and hyperbole is a sure way to undermine an argument.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh
ALEX Orr has a brilliant idea (Commons lock-in may help resolve the Brexit impasse, January 14), but it requires further development.
Tip off the SNP representatives to walk out, lock the doors and stick the key down the nearest sewer.
Les Hunter
Lanark
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