In his article about Alex Salmond’s Referendum Bill, Iain Macwhirter lauds the First Minister as being unique in his grasp of minority government as a virtue born out of necessity (“Why LibDem veto makes a referendum inevitable”, The Herald, November 2). May I remind your readers that I was the first Scottish political leader to argue that minority government was a sustainable alternative to coalition, and I did that back in 2005? I remember being roundly denounced at the time by various commentators but what I argued then has come to pass.
It is the Scottish Conservatives who have used that opportunity to political advantage by securing delivery of
Conservative policies such as more
police officers, cuts in business rates, a new national drugs strategy for Scotland and the popular Town Centre Regeneration Fund.
Far from being the lost tribe of Scottish politics, the Scottish Conservatives are the pivotal influence in Scottish politics. Indeed, as the General Election approaches, it is the Conservatives who are seen as advocates of a positive agenda for change. This may also explain the healthy vote for the Conservatives in Scotland at the European elections and the dramatically improved General Election opinion polling for the party, which has consistently placed us 25% up on where we were at the 2005 election.
Annabel M Goldie, MSP, Scottish Conservative leader, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.
Iain Macwhirter is mistaken. Before the 2007 election, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, led by Nicol Stephen (not Tavish Scott), repeatedly said they would not enter a coalition with the SNP unless the latter dropped its demand for a referendum. This assertion was ridiculed by commentators who predicted confidently that the LibDems would do anything to stay in government and would certainly renege on this pledge if the SNP came calling.
The LibDem MSPs who were elected under a promise not to support a referendum stuck to it and refused to prop up the Nationalists. Tavish Scott continued that policy and now the MSPs have expressed the strong view that, having been elected under a “no support for a referendum” ticket, they will adhere to that pledge for the remainder of this parliament rather than change horses in mid-stream. Has it really come to this, that “political party keeps promise” is so very hard to understand?
In the meantime, with the SNP having abandoned any attempt to reach an agreement with the Liberal Democrats upon a replacement for the unfair council tax (unfortunately the former’s “local” income tax was anything but local), we await with interest to see what their next proposal is.
Jane Ann Liston, North East & Central Fife Liberal Democrats, 5 Whitehill Terrace, Largo Road, St Andrews.
We now have a position where the three Unionist parties oppose a referendum they would clearly win and a Nationalist government propounding one it would clearly lose. Furthermore, the three Unionist parties themselves have a constitutional position (Calman) they wish to legitimise, yet would seem to be standing in the way of legitimising it through a referendum.
The view of the Unionist parties appears to be that the decision of the electors comes at either a Westminster or a Scottish election and not through referendums. That the decisions at these elections are made on many issues and not simply on constitutional issues is an awkward fact. The argument that the Unionist parties are all united in defence of the Union does not hold water either as they have radically different views of what constitutes that Union.
Am I alone in wishing for a referendum, not simply to express my opinion but also in order that the whole wearisome and pointless debate can be put to bed so that Scotland’s politicians can stop using this whole issue as a cloak to disguise the lack of any meaningful vision as to Scotland’s future? It seems to me that far too much of this, in all parties, is not down to principle or theory but to the strops and tantrums of people who, in their wish to score personal points off each other, have forgotten their mandate to represent.
Hugh Andrew, 10 Newington Road, Edinburgh.
I was very surprised to read Iain Macwhirter’s observations about the Scottish Liberal Democrats as they have been entirely consistent in their position on the independence referendum, in line with their manifesto. The SNP has dropped manifesto pledges by the barrowload, so how can it be said to be successful? If you ask teachers, pupils, parents, students and first-time house-buyers, I believe the answer from many would be that the SNP has been spectacularly unsuccessful.
David May,Montrose.
While in no way wishing to endorse the performance of the SNP as a success, I believe that I can help Alex Gallagher in his pursuit of a definition of the word failure (Letters, November 3). He need only look to Westminster and the dismal legacy which will be left behind by Messrs Blair and Brown.
Robin McNaught,Bridge of Weir.
Alex Gallagher lists what he considers to have been the SNP’s failures. He then asks: if this is our definition of success, how do we define failure? Here is a suggestion. After almost three-quarters of a century of representation by Labour, the Springburn/Glasgow North East constituency is still one of the poorest in the entire UK, at the wrong end of almost any league table one can think of.
Andrew M Fraser, Inverness.
Evidence proves that smoking shortens life and diminishes its quality
Chris Parton suggests that eliminating all smoking would extend the average life span by “not very much” (Letters, November 2). In a study published by the BMJ on February 17, 2009 (Gruer, Hart, Gordon, Watt), we analysed survival of smokers and never-smokers from Paisley and Renfrew. They were aged 45-64 when recruited in the 1970s and we reported on 28 years of follow-up (adjusting, statistically, for different ages at recruitment).
Never-smokers lived, on average, around 20-25 years longer than smokers, depending on age and social position. The effect was similar for men and women, for high and low social class, and for those living in deprived or non-deprived areas.
One-quarter of adults in Scotland still smoke (Scottish Household Survey, 2008 data). Eliminating smoking, all other things staying the same, would extend the life span of those who would otherwise have been smokers by a very substantial amount. And, for many smokers, reduced life expectancy is accompanied by illness and distress, reducing function and quality of life for years prior to death.
Whatever the “best” terminal condition may be, it is most certainly not smoking-related in terms of either quantity or quality of life.
David Gordon, Perthshire.
Twenty years ago, as co-ordinator of the Scottish Drugs Forum, I had the opportunity to help update the then Scottish Office’s guidelines on drug problems and was able to insert at the beginning sections on tobacco and alcohol. I would have liked to have preceded these with something on sugar but, at the time, that was a step too far. Excessive sugar in the young is one of the hidden “gateways” to later drug abuse. Scotland’s notorious “sweet tooth” can hardly be unconnected from the teenage craving for sweetened drinks such as cider and Buckfast, and there is an argument that booze is just sweeties for men.
In the present dispute about the conflict between scientific evidence and government policy (Letters, November 2 and 3), it behoves everyone to stay within their own remit. What we need to know from Neil McKeganey as a sociologist, for example, is why droves of 14- and 15-year-olds flock to their riverside dens each Friday evening with illegally obtained alcohol to get “smashed” (“Why it was correct to dismiss David Nutt”, The Herald, November 2). Also, why addictive tobacco use is gradually being corralled within the less well-off areas. Is it because the thrill of horse-riding is not available?
Of course, the first job of a politician is to be elected (or re-elected). A platform promising the eradication of opium in Afghanistan, marijuana in Pakistan and coca in Colombia is likely to attract more votes than threatening the tobacco, alcohol or pharmaceutical industries at home. That’s the price we pay for democracy. But those qualified to do so are still entitled to point to the evidence that the increase in drug programmes, methadone, rehabs, sanctions, imprisonment and drug experts over the past 20 years has had scarcely any effect on the
escalating drug problem.
Willy Slavin, Chartered psychologist (retired), Glasgow.
Closing RBS account
Some weeks ago, I told my friendly local branch of the RBS that I knew it was the healthy part of the bank (“3700 RBS jobs to go as new £25bn bail-out is approved”, The Herald, November 3). Also that, if the head office attacked them, I would close my account.
It did seem predictable that a management that has demonstrated its incompetence and untrustworthiness would not change its habits. The greedy would be maintained, the reliable would be discharged.
I regret that I was right and will set about moving my business to a more ethical bank. I guess I may not be the only customer to make this move.
Bill Agnew, Lochmaben.
As A long-standing customer of RBS, I was dismayed to learn of the job cuts to front-line staff. Having received friendly and efficient service over the years, it is sad that so many of these people are likely to lose their jobs. It must affect customer service.
What I can’t understand is the fact that, at a time when the bank is paying off so many people, it has reportedly set aside £4bn for staff salaries and bonuses, with some investment staff expecting seven-figure sums.
In the present financial climate, I would expect that having a job would be sufficient incentive to work hard without the need for obscene bonuses.
Bob MacDougall, Stirlingshire.
Anomalous situation in regard to rubbish collection should be addressed
Friends of the Earth Scotland is to be commended for highlighting the potential for improving waste recycling, particularly in the case of commercial waste (“£250m wasted every year by not recycling rubbish”, The Herald, November 3). As a starting point, it might petition the Westminster and Holyrood Parliaments to address the odd position whereby if business waste is collected by the council it falls into the recycling/diversion obligations, but if the same waste is collected by a private contractor, it does not.
Banning mixed-waste streams from incineration as a treatment process is an over-simplification and is not feasible, given present circumstances. No waste collector, be it council or contractor, could ensure the integrity of the product.
John F Crawford, Troon.
There is a regional power struggle in Afghanistan that will determine the outcome of hostilities
You write that the west is giving Hamid Karzai one last chance (“Karzai’s last chance – President needs a government of national unity”, The Herald, November 3). We did not hear clearly when the people of Afghanistan spoke recently; it was a bad line. But, against the grain of history, Nato forces are still striving to win in Afghanistan. What does win mean in the context of a failed political authority in Kabul?
The Soviets in a post-evacuation analysis claimed they would have needed some 500,000 troops to win (rather than the 120,000 they actually deployed). How many troops will the International Security Assistance Force and the United States deem necessary? Can the Taliban leadership of the 15 million Pashtun
people be defeated militarily, politically or culturally by Nato ? Would a troops-out strategy produce peace in Afghanistan, or would an emboldened Taliban seek revenge on the compromised ruling elites in Kabul?
Sir Alexander Burnes, a Montrose laddie (whose grandfather was the uncle of our national poet), was the great military explorer, spy and diplomat in Afghanistan in the 1830s. His brutal death alongside his brother, Charles, and the more than 15,000 British troops by elements of the great Pashtun Durani Empire in 1841 is a stark reminder that victory in Afghanistan has never been achieved by external (imperial) forces.
Indeed, Burnes, as the designated political officer in Cabool (Kabul), warned the British Government over and over that the political situation (from 1839-41) was disintegrating . Then the volcano erupted and Britain received its first major defeat in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in 2009, we see an enduring escalation of regional insurgencies spilling over from Afghanistan: bombings in Iran and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) fighting in Tajikistan with reports of IMU militants active across the region in efforts to create an Islamic state encompassing all of the former Soviet central Asian states and parts of China’s Xinjiang province.
It is this aggregated regional power struggle that will ultimately decide the outcome in that crucible of rich natural resources … and the west may not have the final say.
Thom Cross, Carluke.
It is not only Hamid Karzai’s last chance, but also Afghanistan’s, for the political system as it stands is corrupt, as has been amply demonstrated by Dr Abdullah Abdullah’s withdrawal and Mr Karzai’s unelected presidency. Even the suggestion of an “inclusive” form of government does not hold out much hope as it will almost certainly mirror the current situation in Zimbabwe.
This is a country in which the Taliban controls at least 50% of the provinces and in which, despite massive foreign intervention, financial support and the loss of hundreds of lives, both military and civilian, Osama bin Laden still remains at large and the Taliban rampant. To say this war, if successful on all fronts, will prevent terrorism internationally is nonsense.
Does this war justify the increasing loss of life, the gross expenditure on armaments and the increasingly untenable stance of some western governments and their leaders? It is time the western governments faced the fact that, unless the Afghans want to put their own house in order, our forces should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
Ian F M Saint-Yves, Dunvegan, Arran.
