TO some Douglas Ross might have sounded almost plausible in the Scottish Parliament talking about the Hate Crime Act. Not to me.
As a black woman born into a Britain without any anti race-hate legislation (the first came into force not long before I started school), I can only say that the legislation has never ever kept up with the dangerous bigotry.
We now live in a world where the hatred is not only unfettered, unleashed and unbearable, it has in recent years – and partly because of the behaviour of some prominent people in Ross’s own party – become almost acceptable to a growing group.
From a legal point, far from being out of step with other rules, it ties in with – for example – the sex offenders register where someone can be placed without conviction.
Ross complained about police workloads. Well, if so many sitting Tory MPs weren’t being investigated for sexual misconduct, police forces might have more time.
If you are in any doubt as to the wrongness of Ross’s fake election-themed indignation and wish to play woke-ism with this act – stop. Read the comment section on YouTube accompanying his presentation. Truly scary.
And don’t even get me started on Ross making a victim out of someone such as Murdo Fraser ...
Amanda Baker
Edinburgh
SANNY Martin in Wednesday’s paper hits the nail on the head with the last paragraph of his letter criticising Dave Doogan advocating a strong SNP voice at Westminster.
No matter the number of MPs or the decibels raised by an SNP contingent there, the result will be the same – scorn, ridicule and disdain plus annoyance that this English club is being disturbed by some North Brits.
Playing the Westminster game only lets the majority there show their disregard for everything and anyone that disrupts or disputes an English viewpoint.
The pious hope that Labour taking over the reins from the Tories means an improvement is at best naive or worse still, self-delusion.
By all means, SNP MPs should attend to constituency matters but why take part in debates where they have little relevance to Scotland and only allow English MPs to express their contempt for the non-English?
SNP MPs still take the oath of allegiance to the monarch, so why not make fun of it? That would show viewers what we think of the so-called mother of parliaments and return the respect (or lack of it) shown to Scottish representatives with interest.
The present performance of SNP MPs at Westminster only raises the question “why are they there?” and does little to progress independence. Maybe the odd appearance on TV is reward enough for some – inflating self-importance but doing nothing for independence.
Independence-supporting parties should consider the role of their MPs, especially their effectiveness, before the next UK elections.
Many of us are more concerned with Westminster’s voice and influence in Scotland rather than the largely mythical Scottish voice at Westminster.
Drew Reid
Falkirk
IT is three years since an initial complaint led to Police Scotland’s investigation of SNP finances. The SNP are not in financial terms a large or complicated organisation, and all relevant accounts have already been audited.
Over three years, the “Operation Branchform” investigators must have had space to examine every single transaction at least 10 times.
As a paid-up SNP member and Scottish voter, I would like to know the outcome of this multi-million-pound exercise.
If the core problem was the use of funds donated for an independence referendum campaign, it is clear you cannot campaign without securing a referendum.
So campaigning for a referendum is part and parcel of the same effort, unless detailed donor conditions dictate otherwise. That is the ABC of accounting, not complex, high-level fraud.
Whether any revised allocations leave the SNP in technical deficit or not, the investigation is now creating a democratic deficit in Scotland, as well as endless confusion in the UK media. We are all entitled to an outcome before any election campaigns begin.
Donald Smith
Edinburgh
THERE can be no doubt that neither the Tories nor the Labour Party are in the slightest bit interested in the future of our planet. I do not understand why anyone would vote for either of them, especially if those voters have progeny.
Owen Jones has indicated that he would like some other green or independent party to fill the yawning gap that has presented itself most obviously in English politics.
At least we have the SNP to vote for in Scotland.
The SNP appear to be more socialist than either English party, and, for all the criticism, at least support some facets of protecting the Earth from the greed of capitalists, who mostly, for reasons entirely understandable, inhabit Aberdeen.
They even support the Scottish Greens, although from outpourings in The National that seems to have become a virtual criticism.
Why is it that, in Scotland, there is so much mistrust of England? It could be, as I have written in the past, that England is not only ignorant of the existence of Scotland, it chooses to completely ignore the views of its population. Westminster even votes to blue-pencil laws passed with a majority in Holyrood.
It bears repeating – anyone who votes for the Tories or for Labour is, without doubt, a Unionist.
Tony Kime
Kelso
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