I have some news for Andy Maciver (“Scottish Labour urgently needs to declare independence from its bosses in London”, The Herald, November 28).
The words ‘Independent’ and ‘Labour’ don’t sit comfortable together, so it is unlikely that the Labour Party in Scotland would go it alone.
To do so, it would need to present and demonstrate leadership, something that has been lacking, as evidence highlights.
How can it be that the vast majority of MPs in Scotland are Labour MPs, yet when it comes to speaking up about major issues affecting Scotland (Grangemouth, Mossmorran and Alexander Dennis), those same MPs are conspicuous by their silence.
They sit back on the green benches in Parliament, watching their Government save jobs in England while redundancy looms for Scottish workers.
If we need evidence regarding who speaks up for Scotland, and which Government is saving jobs here, we only have to look at the furlough scheme put in place by the SNP Holyrood Government for the Alexander Dennis workers in Falkirk.
Returning to my opening remark, ‘Independent’ and ‘Labour’ really don’t sit comfortable together.
That’s why the party in Scotland are content to be part of the UK organisation, who are inflicting job losses in Scotland.
The Westminster Labour Party is also continuing the cost of living crisis for households and inflicting the highest energy costs in Europe, while at the same time Scotland is the energy capital of Europe.
It is oh so sad for the founding fathers of Scottish Labour. Andy Maciver claims: “There is a future for the Scottish Labour Party.”
Indeed there is… true and achievable under an independent Scotland.
Though I’m not sure there is a future for the Labour Government at Westminster.
Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk.
More letters...
Keir Starmer is getting more like Margaret Thatcher every day
Joanna Cherry: Why I must set the record straight on my view of Scotland's future
John Swinney's deal with Kate Forbes is utterly shameless
Labour lacks legitimacy
We are all aware of the propensity for Labour to ignore its manifesto commitments, now this is becoming the norm.
The latest change of mind entails abandoning plans to give workers day-one protection against unfair dismissal (“Starmer faces backbench anger over work U-turn”, The Herald, November 29).
This U-turn is actually to be welcomed, though it demonstrates, yet again, that many of the reasons people voted Labour are being diluted or abandoned.
Given the relatively short space of time since all these promises were made, and the number jettisoned, does the current Labour government still have legitimacy?
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
Reeves’ goose is cooked
Judging from the article by Karen Peattie (“Chaotic UK Budget raises Scots investment concerns”, The Herald, November 28) and comments by many others, Rachel Reeves has failed to reach the standard set by French statesman Jean-Baptiste Colbert.
He wrote that the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing.
Perhaps, to quote from a recent Herald article, Ms Reeves' civil servants failed to timely escalate relevant information.
Time for snollygosters to go.
David Miller, Milngavie.
Public enquires: how to cut costs
Jill Stephenson rightly questions the costs incurred in public inquiries rather than argue that there are too many of them (Herald Letters, November 28).
The reason costs are so high is because of the way in which the inquires are conducted. They are open and transparent and held in public, which contributes to the cost.
A more cost efficient solution would be to appoint someone (or perhaps two people) to investigate the problem that the inquiry is set up to address.
That person (or persons) would then meet the relevant people in private (or online) before producing a report.
The report would be published on the government website, and I am sure that many interested parties would want to contribute their comments, at no cost to the public purse.
Whilst I would be more than willing to conduct a public inquiry into public inquiries in the above terms, I do not have the necessary contacts to undertake such a task.
However, for £500 I would happily provide the Scottish Government with a more nuanced report as to how such an inquiry might be conducted.
A senior judge or retired civil servant could, on that basis, investigate the workings of public inquiries and make his or her report.
I suggest that the person appointed should be paid no more than £20,000 plus expenses. I hope that would meet Ms Stephenson’s legitimate concerns.
Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh.
Modernise justice system
Even as a former police officer of fairly broad and long service, I do not support the idea of juryless trials for serious offences (“Scottish lawyers issue new warnings over juryless trials,” The Herald, November 28).
However, I do believe the justice system needs to be urgently modernised. Courts need to come into the twenty-first century, working regular hours; evenings and weekends if necessary.
In the past, I have been a witness in High Court cases where the judge, on a Friday afternoon at around 3.30pm, would close proceedings for what seemed like personal reasons.
Hopefully that doesn’t happen now.
W. MacIntyre, East Kilbride.
Independence? Only Scots decide
On Radio Scotland Rachel Reeves decreed, with regal plurality, that, “there won’t be another referendum… we don’t need another one.”
Irrespective of a clear and democratic expression of the will of the Scottish people, through their elected Parliament.
This stance reduces the complex constitutional future of a nation to a matter of simple accounting, a finalised balance sheet not to be reopened.
The imperious diktat that “we don’t need another one” is not a democratic argument. It suggests that the question of a nation’s sovereignty is a matter to be settled once and for all by a central authority, not a continuous right of the people to determine their own future.
The precedent for a lawful, agreed referendum was set in 2014.
To now assert that no future government at Holyrood, regardless of its electoral mandate, can ever revisit the question is to argue that Scottish democracy is conditional and can be overruled by Westminster fiat.
It contradicts the very essence of the Claim of Right for Scotland, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.
Ms. Reeves and her government may believe the Union is settled. They are entitled to that belief.
But they are not entitled to veto the democratic process of another nation.
To do so is to treat Scotland not as a partner, but as a subordinate.
The people of Scotland will decide what they need, and no amount of regal pronouncements from London will alter that fundamental democratic truth.
Charlie Shaw, Burnside, Rutherglen.
Poverty trap of independence
Latest trade figures produced by the SNP show that separation from the United Kingdom would be a disaster for Scotland as only a small portion of Scotland’s exports are outside the UK.
This would leave Scotland caught in an economic poverty trap without funds for the huge benefit payments given to the 804,000 economically inactive Scots of working age.
Dennis Forbes Grattan, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.
Share