AS someone who has supported the SNP and independence since 1991, man and boy you might say, I read Mr MacNeil’s comments and felt incredibly depressed. As my previous letters have shown, Mr Yousaf was not my choice for First Minister. However, I think the man has done a good job considering the challenges he (and the rest of the SNP, for that matter) has faced.
While some disagree with this, particularly in regard to independence, I would ask them, what are the alternatives? Do we do as Ian Smith did in Rhodesia and declare UDI? Or hold a wildcat reference as the Catalonians did? Do we want to see a repeat of the Irish Civil War? We all know the outcomes from those actions.
READ MORE: Angus MacNeil MP will NOT rejoin SNP group at Westminster
To gain independence for Scotland, we have to take people with us. This means having arguments and questions settled in order to debate and persuade those who disagree with us. It is not about having very public and disrespectful splits with each other.
By splitting the vote for pro-independence parties, the only winners are the Unionists and any fall in the number of pro-independence votes or MPs/MSPs will be used to either further reduce the powers of Holyrood or claim that Scots do not want their freedom. I ask you – how does this help? If you want to criticise, then for pity’s sake, be CONSTRUCTIVE.
READ MORE: Angus MacNeil insists he has 'absolutely no plans' to join Alba
Finally, I would say to the pro-independence voters who are considering returning to supporting Labour, what happens if we see a repeat of the 1992 General Election? I well remember how Kinnock’s lead over the Tories dwindled and John Major emerged with a workable majority which was far bigger than that enjoyed by either Wilson or Callaghan. Yes, Labour’s current lead is in double figures, but it is falling. Do you want to take that risk?
In conclusion, we need to work together to achieve a common goal. We need to be considerate and constructive. We need to be able to have answers for debates. Mr MacNeil and others, are you doing that? Are you helping or being a hindrance?
Andrew Haddow
Glasgow
IAN Murray pretends that Labour will act differently from the Tories once in government, and magically solve the UK’s economic woes. But reversing the carnage will take more than Rachel Reeves meeting with mortgage brokers to hear how people are suffering under the Bank of England’s high interest rates.
The trouble is that she andStarmer are committed to the Bank’s devastating interest-rate hikes (that aren’t working), Tory austerity and the war on public-sector workers. As a former Bank of England junior staffer, Reeves recently said we must respect economic institutions, not criticise them for screwing people and plunging the economy into recession.
READ MORE: 'Nationalist civil servants are undermining Tory ministers', Labour lord claims
Labour pretends there is no money to invest in health, education or clean water, to name just a few of the essentials people need. And Wes Streeting is warning that Labour won’t make promises it can’t keep, so it can’t make the investments needed to improve people’s lives.
Then what is Labour for? Why does it seek power if it can’t improve people’s lives? In 1942 John Maynard Keynes said that “anything we can actually do, we can afford.” The post-war Attlee Labour government followed Keynes’s advice, pushing through massive public-sector investments in health, education, transport, housing and energy that resulted in full employment, good wages, vastly improved public services, no inflation and rising GDP while enabling the UK to pay off its international debts.
READ MORE: Labour peer who fled Nazis as child joins cross-party criticism over mural repainting
The Nordic nations took note, copied the Keynesian model and kept it, which explains their current social stability and economic prosperity.
The UK is failing. At best, Labour will manage the decline. This begs the question – why does Scotland remain anchored to an anachronism?
Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh
AFTER reading the piece in Thursday’s paper about Pete Wishart and the heartless approach by Westminster I felt sick to the pit of my stomach (Tories urged to ‘show some compassion’, Jul 13).
In lands far away, where hopes reside, children of asylum seekers take a daring stride. Seeking refuge from the turmoil they endure, aching hearts and souls, longing for a cure.
In their innocent eyes, reflections of fear, a journey fraught with pain, shedding countless tears. Leaving behind all they’ve ever known, in search of safety, a place they can call home.
Across treacherous borders they bravely tread, through hardships and perils, their spirits unfed, carrying scars invisible, etched upon their hearts, their resilience tested as they face the darkest parts.
But when they reach the shores, hope within their grasp, they encounter a world that seems to wear a mask. A welcome once expected, now met with disdain, their dreams shattered, filled with sorrow’s rain.
Children, innocent and fragile, bear the weight, of policies and prejudice that seal their fate. The shock of feeling unwelcome, so hard to bear, in a land they sought solace, in despair.
Let us open our arms, extend a helping hand, to these children lost in a foreign land, for they carry stories of resilience and strife, their dreams deserve a chance, a chance at life.
In unity and compassion, let us rise, to offer love and warmth, a gentle surprise, Let us build bridges, erase the walls, embrace these children, for humanity calls.
May their hardships be replaced with love’s embrace, and may they find a haven, a safer space. For every child, seeking refuge and release, deserves a chance to find solace and peace.
Kevin Walker
via email
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