THE dreich weather yesterday matched my mood after a few hours’ canvassing in “Royal” Deeside, which is a strange mix of the very affluent and the very poor – the latter community is usually well hidden, although after the vicissitudes of the oil industry and the pandemic there is now significant unemployment here, and consequent reliance on the various remedies for financial disaster like the well-used local food banks.
What has been particularly depressing is the response from many of those who will vote, or have voted, Tory. The extent of cronyism, financial shenanigans, the loss of so many lives in the badly managed Covid response – and the general malaise surrounding the Westminster government – is shrugged off. For these people, the issue is about the SNP’s use of the taxpayers’ (ie their) money to give to poorer people, who, they maintain, are poor only because they choose to have large families.
READ MORE: Douglas Ross 'believes Boris Johnson' – but refuses to say he is honest
The SNP’s introduction of baby boxes, free school meals, and general “socialist” policies are seen as taking money from those who have “worked hard” to give to the feckless poor, which latter group choose to live off state handouts and refuse to work (in spite of the lack of full-time employment here with a declining oil and gas sector).
The supposed argument that independent Scotland cannot survive financially is easily refuted when we look at small nations like Estonia, but the idea that we should only be looking out for ourselves and that poverty is a lifestyle choice is a disturbing development. Is it because the pandemic has limited social interaction and people are getting their knowledge of wider society from the Daily Mail? And why is the Kirk not making more fuss about a society where people are blamed for their own misfortunes and not helped to develop a meaningful role in society?
After the first lockdown there were all sorts of comments about how we should be kinder to each other and look out for those less fortunate. But now it’s time for us to put our money where our mouths are, there appears to be a significant number who have become more self-absorbed and dare one say selfish, and that is a tragic development for Scottish society.
Dr Mary Brown
Banchory
LOOKING at the west of Scotland region for Holyrood 2021, it just might be that the SNP take all 10 constituency seats, but then again might just be pipped to the post and take eight seats. Either way there will be no SNP list seats, as only 4% would likely be available even for an eight-seat constituency result, both based upon a 36% list turnout for the SNP.
The Greens would appear to be on target for one list seat from 10% unless they can boost their percentage to around 21%, ie, the same as the forecast Conservative list percentage, giving them list seats from 21%, 11%, and 7%, at which point they get three list seats.
READ MORE: Scots won't want indyref2 even if they vote for SNP majority, Tony Blair claims
Such a result would be 10 constituency seats for the SNP, two list seats Conservative, two list seats Labour, three list seats Green; or alternatively eight constituency seats SNP, one constituency seat Conservative, one constituency seat Labour, two list seats Conservative, two list seats Labour, three list seats Green.
As always with the D’Hondt system it is the 7% area where the upsets occur, and why 21% and not 10% is where the Green vote needs to be if Scotland is to become a stable, independent EU nation state in relatively short order.
I feel obliged to go for SNP constituency, and Green list for the West of Scotland region, and the thought of Holyrood with an evolved SNP and young and inclusive Green party being the key players, with potentially 13 of the 17 Holyrood seats coming from the West of Scotland region, appears really quite enticing.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
SLEAZE, cronyism, dodgy deals, jobs for the boys and who paid for what are all the current headlines from Westminster, begging the question, do we in Scotland want to be part of this?
Amongst all the figures floating around is the revelation that the PM is entitled to an annual allowance of £30,000 (taxpayers’ money) for the upkeep of the PM’s flat. This £30,000 equates to a staggering four times that of the Universal Credit benefit for a couple (both over 25 years old) of just over £7,000 annually! It also equates to 95% of average annual earnings in the UK – earnings that must cover the upkeep of one’s property!
The pandemic has sadly forced many households to focus solely on security of income, keeping the roof over their heads and providing for their families, so it is quite repugnant and offensive to hear the shenanigans of Westminster’s cosmetic refurbishment at staggering costs.
Many households are now dependant on Universal Credit due to the pandemic, yet the Westminster government has refused to make the uplift of £20 per week permanent.
It is staggering, and quite frankly Scotland should not be dragged into such shenanigans. With the Holyrood elections a week away and in light of the above, perhaps the Conservative and Unionist Party leader in Scotland, Douglas Ross MP, may want to consider his position of being part of the Westminster government at the heart of such shenanigans.
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
PERHAPS the most damming aspect of the “letting the bodies pile up” remark, allegedly made by the Tory clown in Westminster, is that it will come as no surprise to many because he is capable of having said it.
Jane Bullock
Inverness
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