REGARDING the Commonwealth Games, I’m struggling to understand the wisdom in Scotland hosting.
If we were just taking our turn at hosting the games (as we did in 2014) I’d be all for it. But that’s not what’s happening here, we’re hosting them because Victoria in Australia can’t afford to.
Perhaps I lack the political strategic nous of the ministers who made this call, but I’d like to know what consideration was given to NOT hosting the games.
READ MORE: How much will the Glasgow Commonwealth Games cost?
Perhaps I’m the only Scot who appreciates the symbolism of an event with the word “Commonwealth” in its title, with such historic ties to the British Empire, falling flat on its face?
Personally I think that would have been a really powerful demonstration of the decline in Britain’s global reach.
And all we would have had to do, to embarrass the hell out of the British establishment is ... NOTHING!
Instead we’ve actually rescued it! And in doing so we have made it look like Anas Sarwar is in charge. Saved face for a nation we are actually campaigning to leave. Potentially given our opposition a stick to beat us with if there are any problems.
If anyone from the Scottish Government reads this I’d really appreciate an answer as to the strategic plus points of agreeing to host these games as opposed to letting them fail.
David Birkett
Peterhead
IF Neil Gray and the other ministers in the SNP government had put the same effort into achieving independence that was employed in securing the Commonwealth Games for Glasgow then Scotland would have become independent years ago.
What a bunch of idiotic suckers the SNP are today! Their craven efforts to secure the future of the Games and all that it represents is a slap in the face for all those campaigners, past and present, who fought so hard to create a truly democratic and independent country.
READ MORE: See the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games in pictures
When they stand on the dais at the opening ceremony will they pay their respects and homage to all those civilisations worldwide that have been destroyed and their inhabitants exterminated? Will they celebrate the introduction of concentration camps and their continuing existence? Maybe, just maybe, they will reflect on the wealth the country generated through human trafficking, or will they just bask in the glory and praise heaped on them by their Westminster superiors?
With joint campaigning efforts in excess of 110 years, we have shredded our SNP membership cards.
John & Irene Hunter-Paterson
Dundonald
NEW Scottish Government legislation has given local authorities powers to designate Fireworks Control Zones (FCZs), which will be enforced by Police Scotland.
The use of fireworks (except sparklers) will be banned in Pollokshields FCZ from November 1-10,covering public and private spaces such as gardens.
READ MORE: Scottish nuclear base staff using pagers adds to Trident fears
However, this haphazard policy is idealistic and not realistic.
Police Scotland is facing a shortage of officers due to a reduction of funding, and almost a quarter are eligible to retire or are off sick on modified duties.
The onus shouldn’t be placed on the public. It must be on retailers and suppliers a step earlier to prevent people from even purchasing them.
Closing the loophole on the supply of fireworks would be far better than expecting Police Scotland to patrol the area. As putting themselves in the line of fire quite literally will put then in danger, and a strain on them dealing with other crimes committed during the same time period.
Jill Ferguson
Glasgow
JINGS crivvens, michty me, it appears that Brian Lawson’s weekly anti-SNP/Scottish Government newsletter, has become twice-weekly. However, although Mr Lawson appears to know all the answers, I find the newsletter rarely comes up with any.
That said, I know there are several readers who agree with the views expressed in the newsletter, indeed I have it on good authority that Dame Baillie of Brassneck is an approving and appreciative reader. However, in typical newsletter fashion, the latest edition closed with a couple of snarky questions which Mr Lawson cannily suggested could come from the Scottish public in the future – nothing to do with him, you see.
The first question being, “What is the point of having a Scottish Parliament which is subservient to Westminster”. The answer would have to be, it is called devolution – you should know, you voted for it!
The other question, “what is the point of voting SNP?” Unfortunately even in this future scenario, I see no credible alternative emerging. Perhaps Mr Lawson has a suggestion?
Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry
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