POLITICIANS MUST STOP LYING TO HIDE TRUTHS THEY DON'T LIKE

Two articles in today’s issue ('The Art of Listening' by Susan Flockhart and 'Hitching a ride on Trump’s missiles in a largely pointless military action' by Iain Macwhirter, April 15) are good examples of cause and effect.

Susan Flockhart’s article identifies our problems with poor communication. She cites Mikael Krogerus - “the bottom line of all communications is that we don’t really listen” - and Jamie Bartlet, a social media analyst, who observed, “your opponents can’t simply hold a principled, different opinion. They must be bad”.

The result of this binary approach to communication is that we live in a “post-truth” world in which no-one can be believed. As Peter Pomerantsen noted, “Nothing is true and everything is possible in Putin’s Russia” which seems similar to Tony Blair’s boast of “creative ambiguity”. In this situation, democracy is the first victim.

For example, last weekend viewers all over the world witnessed men, women, children and babies in Douma being treated for the effects of inhaling a poison gas: but who was guilty of sending it and what were elected politicians and humanitarian organisations going to do to prevent it happening again? The propaganda machines moved into action and more effort seemed to be spent on finger pointing than getting to the truth and apportioning blame.

20th century history shows us that when, as Mr. Macwhirter pointed out, “international law is honoured more in the breach than in observance”, people will elect men – it’s usually men – who promise quick, decisive action to re-establish order and a pre-requisite for this is that elected politicians do nothing to allay the fears and anger of their electorates.

I wish I had an easy solution to this problem but I don’t other than, perhaps, to demand that politicians stop telling us lies or half-truths to cover up a truth which they do not want made public. Politics was always “the art of the possible” and there has probably never been a time when politicians were entirely honest with us but matters have sunk to a new low now in which truth is held in contempt and this is dangerous.

Lovina Roe, Perth,

TIMING CRUCIAL OVER INDYREF2

As a veteran SNP member I was interested to read Angela Haggerty's account of the current internal SNP debate on the timing of the next Independence Referendum against the background of the contest for the party's Deputy Leadership ('Indyref2 saves SNP Deputy race from a fate as exciting as watching paint dry', April 15).

I note that those who favour holding an early referendum prior to the next scheduled Holyrood elections in 2021 are particularly concerned about the possibility of losing the current 'pro-indy majority at that election' and would agree with them that after one and a half decades of so-called 'SNP rule' that is a legitimate concern.

Nevertheless I would simultaneously make the point that if we are genuinely worried, as we should be, about the main pro-indy party's prospects of electoral success in three years' time how can we be confident about the wider Yes campaign's prospects of victory in the even shorter time-scale of 18 months or so?

The central problem for the YES campaign is that in the three and a half years that have already elapsed since the first Independence referendum in September 2014 there has been virtually no sustained movement in Scottish public opinion from No to Yes, and while we can cling to the hope that the expected adverse effects of Brexit on the Scottish economy will eventually operate as a game- changer we simply cannot assume that this will be the case.

I accordingly support the views of those who argue for a delay beyond 2021 at the very earliest in calling the next indyref.

Ian O. Bayne, Glasgow

As the SNP deputy leader candidates compete to hit the right note on indyref2, Douglas Turner reminds me of the attitude that is perhaps one of my biggest concerns when hearing talk of a referendum rerun (Letters, April 15).

Mr Turner could fairly have accused me of being a staunch critic of the SNP and its ambitions to break up the UK. He would have been right to say that I have rarely had a good word to say about the SNP. No surprise there when I am happy to leave it to SNP supporters to highlight its positives. But of course Mr Turner knowingly replaces ‘SNP’ with ‘Scotland’, as if the two are one and the same thing, so that he can instead say I have “never had a positive word to say about Scotland”.

Scotland is my home and has been for a great deal of my life, so is valued by me just as all value the place they call home. Mr Turner’s problem with me is that I value the UK just as much. For the purposes of Scottish nationalism one must be talked up and the other diminished in every way possible, rather than as many of us prefer, to hold both in the same high regard.

Keith Howell, West Linton

It seems that Keith Howell’s sole purpose in life is to denigrate Scotland and the SNP in particular, at least that is my assessment as he moves from one aspect to another.

His latest (Letters, April 15) is a rambling comment on alternative prospects for an independent Scotland from a Scandinavian plan or a New Zealand one. He misses out one essential fact, neither of these countries have had the burden of a Westminster Government bearing them down.

To refresh his memory, when oil was discovered in the North Sea in the Sixties, the Treasury first dismissed it as minimal, then all oil revenues disappeared into its gaping maw. This money, untold billions, was frittered away by one incompetent Government after another; Norway, which discovered roughly the same amount of oil at the same time now has a Sovereign Wealth Fun of over £1trillion.

An independent Scotland can decide whether it wishes to join the EU, EEA, EFTA or whatever; at present it is locked in a ruinous marriage – time we got out and made our own future.

Jim Lynch, Edinburgh

BRING BACK THE BELT

Last year there were almost 5000 Pupil attacks on Primary and Secondary Teachers in Scotland.

The figure is the equivalent of over 20 for every school day. The figure for attacks on Classroom Assistants and Teachers in Special Schools or Pupil Referral Units is much higher.

Compensation claims for Teachers have doubled in three years, much in line with the increase in assaults.

Police Scotland is called out to our schools dozens of times per month.

Teachers are spat upon, scratched, bitten, grabbed, bruised, kicked in the shins, winded in the stomach, punched, sworn at, attacked with improvised weapons, abused on social media, and classrooms are vandalised. Some 95% of teachers report low level disruption.

Yet, against this grim backdrop, which highlights why daily the schooling of the vast majority of well behaved pupils can be ruined by the feral minority, one reads articles like Ron McKay's (For Whom The Belt Told, April 15).

The inference, to be drawn from the article, is that the days of the belt were the Dark Ages, yet there has never been a satisfactory alternative. Ironically, the Nations of SE Asia, with the exam attainment we envy, have retained corporal punishment.

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing

I DON'T LIKE VEGANS

I would suggest that Animal Aid's Summer Vegan Pledge has a lot more to do with animal rights than benefitting one's health ('This June: give peas a chance', April 15).

As someone who is attempting a plant based diet for health reasons I have found that many vegans are totally off putting. My experience of committed vegans is that they behave aggressively and attack anyone who does not adhere totally to their beliefs. I am aware of farmers receiving death threats from vegans accusing them of a holocaust against animals. These people are behaving like a fundamentalist cult and their actions dissuade far more people than they will ever convince.

We are all different but it appears many vegans demand total conformity to their beliefs and respect no other person's beliefs

David Stubley, Prestwick