LET us take Mark Smith’s article (“The Mackay scandal won’t damage the SNP one little bit”, The Herald, February 10) at face value. He asserts the SNP will not lose support because of a “scandal”. I agree; Tories have scandals every other week and are still in business. But he gives opinions on what prevents SNP supporters from switching support to the Tories. One reason he gives is “Anglophobia”, though without supporting research or justification.
The alternative for us would be to vote for a certain Prime Minister Johnson, who has in the past published a poem calling for “verminous Scots” to be “exterminated”. He is on record as opposing Barnett; favours spending £1 in Croydon over spending £1 in Strathclyde; claimed “government by a Scot is just not conceivable”; stated Gordon Brown had a “political disability as a Scottish MP”; wants to claim our water resources (as well as our fish).
Boris Johnson has the morals of an alley cat. He has been repeatedly sacked for lying (and now Ta-dum: the fantasy North Channel bridge!); has had police at the door for a “domestic”. All this without looking at the appallingly badly run, and staffed, services in England, the responsibility of the Tory Government.
No Mr Smith, I think I will stick with the SNP: Nicola Sturgeon et al are not perfect but are superior in every way to Mr Johnson and his chums.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
ALASDAIR Galloway and Alan McKinney (Letters, February 11) raise some interesting points, but I feel that Jim Sillars’ statement in his letter of February 10 cannot go unchallenged. Mr Sillars declares that he voted “to get the EU out of the way before the next referendum” but given that the SNP manifesto of 2016 stated that there would not be a second vote on independence “unless there was a significant and material change of circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will” I am at a loss to understand how, when and under what circumstances Mr Sillars expected to get a second referendum on independence.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
THE Scottish Government is in the precarious position of needing the support of opposition parties to get its budget through the parliament (“A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates”, The Herald, February 7, and Letters, February 11).
Looking at what was on offer in last week’s budget begs the question: what have opposition parties got to add or take away from the proposals as laid out?When we consider the issue that is dominating the agenda recently – climate change – any responsible government needs to address this issue with urgency for future generations. So it was encouraging to hear some of the proposals, an increase of some 8.5 per cent for the environment, climate change and land reform budget, a serious increase in anyone’s eyes. But more was to follow: a 27 per cent increase for rail services in an effort to upgrade stock to a more environmentally friendly and make train journeys more user-friendly. There was also a 15 per cent increase in spending to address fuel poverty and efficiency, a major issue if we are to address and tackle climate change.
This budget will need support from other parties, but in the interest of the planet and climate change, surely the opposition must recognise the importance the SNP is attaching to this major issue.
Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel