It remains to be seen whether the release by WikiLeaks of the Sipdis database, detailing US embassy cables, will lead to a period of more honest international relations, or be the 9/11 of diplomacy, as suggested by Italy’s foreign minister Franco Frattini (“WikiLeaks: Saudi king wanted US to attack Iran”, The Herald, November 29). However, one immediate lesson can be learned by our governments in London and Edinburgh: centralised recording of sensitive information poses a security risk, even if the databases are protected by the latest military-grade protocols and accessed only by vetted officials.
The Sipdis database was created to facilitate information sharing between various intelligence and defence agencies in the United States. The data have now been shared more widely than the State Department ever intended.
The post-9/11 wish to share intelli- gence information is mirrored by the desire of British and Scottish agencies to share personal data to facilitate multi-agency interventions.
But just as there is now much anxiety in the State Department, unauthorised release of medical records, information about vulnerable children or personal communication data could cause immense distress to individuals. When developing systems to enable effective collaboration between departments, our public bodies must resist the temptation to create and share centralised records of sensitive personal information about us.
Dr Geraint Bevan, NO2ID Scotland, Glasgow.
In the current warranted outcry over the WikiLeaks exposure of US documents, we must observe the form in which Washington will take bold action. We should also take care not to blame the victim. Those guilty of making the sensitive documents public are unforgivably reckless.
America could now either close its IT curtains tight and create a governmental information “eCold War” or start to pull in the reins of the freedom the global internet has so far liberally enjoyed in the western world.
While I am all for transparency in government, I am not so naive as to imagine that other nations do not constantly monitor and infiltrate the west and its information.
The balance of freedom of information weighed against our security should always be tipped towards security. I only hope that, when it comes to secrecy, deviousness and cloak-and-dagger skulduggery, Britain is a world leader. Otherwise we are prey to the growing threat of intimidation and worse which the internet can facilitate when misused – as it has just been. There is much which is in the public interest for all of us not to know.
As is often attributed to Churchill: “We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
Bill Brown, Milngavie.
Referees’ grievances should be aired so a resolution can be found
Following the referees’ withdrawal of labour, I am concerned that the SFA seems to be bending over backwards to appease them. There is much talk of stricter sanctions on managers and players who question the integrity of a referee. This is a decision the SFA seems to have taken unilaterally without much thought being given to other interested parties who might have something to say on the matter.
Surely it would make more sense, given the present state of affairs, for all parties – referees, managers, players, the SFA and the SPL – to sit down, air their grievances and then try to find common ground for a set of rules that all agree to abide by.
By threatening to take the views of only one party – the referees – and thereafter introduce stringent or draconian penalties on wayward players or managers, the SFA is storing up trouble for itself. We may soon hear of managers or players withdrawing their services in protest.
The referees have been arrogant in their action, which caused so much disruption. They have not sought to air their grievances with anyone else (even though many of their concerns are probably well-founded).
Nor have they made clear why they took such action.
They expect sympathy for their plight because their integrity is being questioned. Of course their integrity is being questioned. Do they think that when one of their number tells lies, they can escape with their integrity intact?
The referees have to accept there was a part played in all this furore by at least one of them and accept there are things that will have to change in their own structures.
They should, for example, explain controversial decisions immediately after a game. Managers or players may not agree with the explanation, but I think in general they would be more disposed to accepting the integrity of the referee was not in question.
Given that the main cause of this disruption eventually decided to resign, surely it is now incumbent on everyone concerned to sit down and sort this out for the sake of the game in Scotland.
William Nugent, Glasgow.
James Barlas (Letters, November 29) makes an erroneous analogy when he compares the Hugh Dallas affair to that of the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. For good or ill, the Danish cartoons were published by a serious newspaper and were supposedly intended to be a political and satirical critique of fundamentalist Islam.
In contrast, the email forwarded by Hugh Dallas was not a theoretical exploration of the perceived conflict between freedom of speech and hospitality toward minority communities.
It represented a vindictive attack on the pontiff for no other reason than that he is a Catholic. It was the very definition of sectarianism. Yet one of the SFA’s stated aims is to eliminate sectarianism from Scottish football.
However, even had the email itself been fair comment, it still would have been improper for an SFA employee to forward it.
The SFA’s job is to govern Scottish football. It has no role to play in civic society beyond that, whether satirical or otherwise, and is not accountable in those terms.
If I don’t like Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons, I can choose not to buy it and not to advertise in it. Catholics have no such choice to decide who governs Scottish football, and if they support any football club anywhere in Scotland or watch it on television anywhere in the world, they are forced to fund indirectly the SFA.
They have every right to expect public integrity in a public institution, and Peter Kearney was correct to voice objections on their behalf.
Chris McLaughlin, Giffnock.
Are we being conned by scientists on effects of global warming?
After reading Alan J Sangster’s letter about the “facts” of global warming (Letters, November 29), I was amazed that so much stock would be put in science, especially after the University of East Anglia climate change scandal.
It seems to me that if it disnae rain, it’s global warming; if it does rain, it’s global warming; if it disnae snow, it’s global warming; if it does snow, it’s global warming; if there is no wind, it’s global warming, too much wind … you guessed it, it’s global warming. When will people wake up to one of the greatest scientific/political con-jobs perpetrated for years?
Stuart Stevenson, Johnstone.
Alternative Vote ensures people’s choices count and tactical voting becomes obsolete
According to your report, the “heavyweight line-up” of Labour’s old guard is a significant boost to the campaign to retain our (equally outdated) Westminster voting system (“Labour’s big beasts join fight against AV”, The Herald, November 26).
The sight of John Reid, David Blunkett, and the other Labour grandees lining up with William Hague, Baroness Warsi and most of the Tory cabinet merely strengthens my desire for a more realistic voting system. Surely they can retire gracefully and support new Labour leader Ed Miliband in catching up with the 21st century.
Although the Alternative Vote is only a little fairer than the existing system, it has another advantage which is rarely mentioned, but which is important, in allowing me as a voter to feel my views have been as fully expressed as possible. Surely such satisfaction adds to our democracy.
The ability to vote 1, 2, 3 (as we do very successfully in some non-Westminster elections) enables one to support not only one’s favourite candidate or party but also to put one’s second choice second and one’s most detested last. This allows a far fuller expression of views by the voter.
Furthermore, AV makes voting much simpler. With first-past-the-post, if you want your vote to count as fully as possible, you have to work out who is most likely to win and, if it is someone you don’t want, then you have to vote for whoever you guess is most likely to beat them, even if that is not your real first choice. This tactical voting greatly distorts election outcomes, yet it is all a voter can do under first-past-the-post. Indeed, my own vote is always a tactical decision.
With a more rational system, such as AV, you vote 1 for your first choice, 2 for your second and so on, without having to think who might or might not win. The counting system then makes sure that your vote is as effective as possible, given the votes of everyone else.
If I am given half a chance, my referendum vote will be 1 for AV, 2 for first-past-the-post, and 3 for the old-guard coalition of New Labour/Old Tory grandees.
Now that would give me some real voter satisfaction.
Dave du Feu, Linlithgow.
Patient care suffers from lack of nurses
Freezing vacancies, converting qualified midwifery and nursing posts to health care assistant posts – this, by no stretch of the imagination, is management (“Newly qualified nurses facing jobs shortages”, The Herald, November 26). It is a simplistic reaction to a complex problem, one that is disastrously so often taken by management consultants with no understanding of clinical needs.
Nursing assistants were introduced to relieve qualified nurses of non-nursing duties. Only a tiny minority of assistants had any training; this does not denigrate the value of their contribution, but they are not interchangeable.
Now, it appears, they are replacing trained and experienced nurses. Is this the level of expertise to which the health service is being reduced? Is the BMA disturbed by the dilution of a vital service on which it depends?
I question if the same logic applies to administrative posts. Are senior managers being replaced from a much cheaper pool? If not, why not? Would this be any less logical? Who is defending the standards of patient care by determining staff/patient ratios to meet changing demands? Who is defending the hard-won status of nurses? Where are the skilled nurse managers when this deplorable deterioration is permitted? Do they even exist?
J McCall, Glasgow.
Cuts in education will eradicate all the goodwill from teachers that so benefits our young people
Hugh Donnelly, the secretary of the Glasgow Local Association of the EIS teaching union, refers to attacks upon teachers in various forms of budget cuts handed out from Westminster and Holyrood governments and local councils (Letters, November 26).
He states that the damage caused by impending cuts will “result in the demoralisation and increased pressure” upon teachers and indicates that the potential loss of goodwill on their part “will take years to repair”.
Politicians: ignore this at your peril.
What exactly is this goodwill? And what is its worth?
As a primary teacher, I can tell you: the goodwill is evident in teachers who already work well beyond a 35-hour week to provide valuable, meaningful educational experiences for our young people.
It is spending our own money on art and craft materials for pupils to make Christmas novelties to sell at weekend school fairs.
It is our attendance and supervision at the said school fairs (the finances raised supplementing the school’s budget).
It is the accompanying of pupils to supermarket foyers of an evening to lead them in carol-singing (to raise money for the school budget).
It is the guardianship and supervision of pupils involved in bag-packing exercises in the run-up to Christmas (hey, guess where the money goes?).
Married to a secondary teacher, I also know it is the supervision of lunchtime homework clubs and also the preparation and implementation of supported study clubs after school.
It is the football clubs, the basketball clubs, the drama and dance clubs, whereby pupils thrive socially and parents are relieved of arranging and paying for after-school care.
It is the thrilling adventure (I am advised) of a near 24-hour marathon return trip to Alton Towers, or the week-long responsibility of a residential stay at an outdoor centre. I could go on.
Teachers do not undertake such activities because they have nothing better to do with their time.
They, too, are people with families and friends with whom they should spend quality time.
Teachers undertake such activities with their pupils because they fully appreciate and understand what the youngsters get out of it: a good education; and a chance to become successful, effective, confident and responsible citizens.
To attempt to trade against such goodwill would be an act of extreme folly on many levels.
Carolyn Ritchie, Glasgow.
All birds and animals are protected by law
W W Flood questions the SSPCA spokesman who stated the shooting of an animal is a serious offence (Letters, November 29). He asks: “Since when did this enter the statute book?”
Many people have no understanding or conception of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. All animals are protected from cruelty or killing.
No member of the public has any right to harm an animal or bird.
Game birds and animals can only be lawfully killed through the issue of an official licence.
As for herring gulls becoming a major health hazard, can he explain exactly what this health hazard is? I don’t seem to recall members of the public popping off because of the effects of this “plague”.
When man over-fishes the natural habitat of seabirds, where are the birds expected to find food to survive?
Also, the gull that was shot was more likely to have been a lesser black-backed and not a herring gull.
James Simpson, Erskine.
Where there’s a Wills …
Wills and boon. One might even write a book about their good fortune.
Allan Roderick Morrison, Glasgow.
