I FOUND Martin Hannan’s article, “England could hit 200k Covid-19 cases every day” (The National, July 19), to say the least, alarming.
Is the surge in cases in England partly due to London’s double whammy, namely, the Wimbledon tennis tournament and the European cup final at Wembley? Both events attracted large crowds and in both instances the wearing of face masks and social distancing appeared to be practically non-existent.
Did Sajid Javid, the Health Secretary for England, attend either of these two events? Given the rules approved by PM Boris Johnson, he was perfectly entitled to do so.
Has the easing of the restrictions by Boris Johnson been ill-considered also too early?
It must be remembered that the weekend’s Formula 1 racing at Silverstone also attracted large crowds, and again the wearing of face masks and social distancing appeared to be practically non-existent. Perhaps the knock-on effect will emerge in the not too distant future.
I think your front page photographs of FM Nicola Sturgeon wearing a face mask and PM Boris Johnson not wearing one epitomises the situation – a picture is worth a thousand words!
Thomas L Inglis
Fintry
ON The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning, Robert Jenrick put up a spirited defence of Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, insisting that they had no need to isolate because Downing Street was included in the Government pilot scheme that allows close contacts to work and take daily Covid tests.
He defended the decision robustly. Although he didn’t know how long No 10 had been included in the pilot, he knew for certain that it had been for some time along with a number of other government departments – Network Rail, TFL, Heathrow and Border Force – nor could he explain why the pilot had not been offered to large industrial companies such as Rolls Royce, who were having to cut back on their output due to self-isolating staff.
It appears that Andrew Marr and Robert Jenrick had spent far more time discussing the matter than the PM and Chancellor, who had briefly considered and dismissed the idea to show that we are all in this together.
Perhaps Robert Jenrick’s defence owed more to his bail out by the Prime Minister last year, after a £45 million gaffe on a housing development, than his confidence in Birlin’ Boris.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
RUDDERLESS, the behemoth cruise liner the Great Britain changes course and picks up speed.
It’s autopilot has been hacked by the Chinese or Russians, using Israeli software. Below, it all goes unnoticed by the captain and his wife, who are holed up in their cabin with a superstar interior designer.
The purser keeps slipping IOUs under the captain’s door, but he’s too busy looking at catalogues on wallpaper and sofas. The revolting crew are largely ignored by indifferent officers who are, in any case, impossible to find. The previous officer on watch was jettisoned to save money and hadn’t been replaced and so the dangers that lie ahead get closer.
The chaplain holds up the Book of Revelations and having lost his voice, points to an Albrecht Durer woodcut of the apocalypse that vividly depicts the images of war, pestilence, famine and death.
Meanwhile, in the onboard casinos, billionaires and Russian oligarchs are busy laundering trillions while betting on who the next captain is going to be. They have their own escape routes of course on the stern where twin Chinooks rest on adjacent helipads. Lulled into a false sense of security by the tannoy’s mix of muzak and trivia, the passengers are oblivious to the dangers. They are party animals after all and intent on having a good time at any cost.
Down in steerage a group is planning to abandon ship. They intend to takeover the only lifeboat on board, the ML Scotland. It may look somewhat unloved, abused and neglected, but it is still perfectly sea worthy. The forecast is unpredictable but all they have to do is swing out the davit and lower away. The only uncertainty is the timing.
Mike Herd
Highland
I WAS initially drawn to your headline “Poll reveals new backing for indyref2” in Sunday’s edition of the National, but was then somewhat disappointed to read the sub-headline: “More than half of UK Labour Party members back referendum”.
I wonder what the point of this poll was. What difference will it make to the date of a future indyref? In the current political climate, does it really matter what Labour members in the UK think about anything? The poll seems to consist of a sample of under 1000 UK Labour members. I assume only about 100 of them may actually reside in Scotland. In any case, the chances of Labour being in a position of power in the next few years is very small, and the chances of a Labour government granting Scotland a referendum even smaller.
The poll did not go on to ask the rather obvious and more interesting question of the 100 or so possibly residing in Scotland – Will you vote Yes or No? I suspect the answer to that question might be close to the 45/55 result of seven years ago, possibly even lower.
The independence movement has a lot of work to do in the coming months and sadly years to come. It cannot depend on the diminishing number Labour members and voters of England and Wales for any kind of support.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
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