I PROBABLY do not share many of the political views of former PM John Major, but he has gone up in my estimation over these last few days. He stood up and criticised the current government for their actions regarding the Owen Paterson debacle.
John Major had to juggle the “cash for questions” affair which started in 1994 and resulted in a new clearer parliamentary standards in 1997. He also took a lot of interference during his days as PM by those European Research Group Conservative MPs who were stirring for UK to leave the EU. Iain Duncan Smith, Steve Baker, Sir Chope and Jacob Rees-Mogg to name but a few.
This was typified by the stories in the press about ridiculous EU regulations on selling bananas, where a certain journalist was quoting the EU had written some 16,000 words describing a “saleable banana”. The author was a certain Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, writing in the Daily Telegraph. There were other stories in which he misinformed his readership.
Mr Johnson was sacked from the Daily Telegraph for telling lies – not that one but another one he manufactured. One wonders how these obviously intelligent Daily Telegraph and other news media readers are not able to see past the Bumbling Boris act.
The lesson for people who think that the UK Union is the greatest thing since sliced bread and has created the “Mother of all Parliaments” is that they should take a look at how this whole bourach has developed. It has been caused by the lack of a written constitution, which allows “parliamentary standards” experts to flexibly interpret or manipulate direction and results.
The minister for the 19th century Jacob Rees-Mogg exemplifies one of these “experts”. His actual title is Leader of the House, while Boris Johnson’s is leader of the UK. What leadership? Mr Major is right – Rees-Mogg and Johnson are not representing the UK, just their own interests and those of their friends.
All peoples of the world need written constitutions, not written in legal jargon but accessible to readers. Scotland has started the process. Union going to the wall!
Alistair Ballantyne
Birkhill, Angus
ONE of the things that seems to have escaped attention, as Boris breaks one international treaty after another, is that the only reason the United Kingdom entered both the First and Second World Wars was our international commitments to support our fellows under attack. It was international obligation that saw our young men slaughtered in Flanders and in the Western Desert, in Italy, the Balkans, Mesopotamia, Burma and the Oceans of the World. They died because the imperial dream of the empire was about integrity, an integrity which they have passed on to their descendants.
It was the honouring of international treaties which granted the United Kingdom its honourable status on the world stage, together with the relatively pacific (give or take a massacre or two) manner in which it surrendered its empire. Nuclear weapons, of course, enhanced the weight of the voice, particularly since they were owned and controlled by the USA.
My point is that for a state which is an international byword for integrity to become a pariah state and an international laughing stock takes some doing, and our very own Boris has pulled it off.
KM Campbell
Doune
IN the debate over its declining impartiality standards, it can be argued that the BBC is not essentially anti-Scottish and hostile to Scotland as a historic state. However, by doggedly following the leads of the right-wing-dominated UK press in vilifying the endeavours of the Government of Scotland and in unreasonably focusing on problems experienced by other countries around the world to effectively portray “The Brits” as superior (or as frequently boasted by the vacuous resident of 10 Downing Street “the best in the world”, even in matters where the UK is clearly lagging behind other countries, such as in establishing a genuine democracy), the BBC betrays its professional integrity and undermines any remaining semblance of professional impartiality.
This is regrettable, particularly given the BBC’s past lauded reporting reputation, as there are few objective checks and balances on much of the “news” circulated via social media today. In BBC Scotland the BBC now has a vehicle it could use to directly build a “Scottish identity” independent of the perverse influence of the London media but to date there is little evidence to suggest that the editorial staff here have recognised that the majority of the population of Scotland no longer lack confidence in themselves or their country and would like their public broadcaster to reflect their optimism for the future.
Rather than disproportionately dwelling on unfortunate individual NHS experiences or the derogatory comments of those criticising our education system (either disingenuously for political advantage or through failing to comprehend the wider context of Curriculum for Excellence), BBC Scotland could echo the positive outlook of our youth and those who know they can help build a better future for the citizens of our country than those who in their denigration or neglect of Scotland act in the manner of absentee colonial masters.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
WITH his customary haughty particularity, Lord Snooty – aka Jacob Rees-Mogg – said that the French are always grumpy in October due to the anniversaries of Trafalgar and Agincourt. He also took the opportunity to suggest that SNP MP Pete Wishart was grumpy because of the anniversary of the Battle of Flodden.
Maybe someone should remind Rees-Smugg about the battles of Bannockburn and Stirling Bridge – or perhaps not, it might make him grumpy.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh
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