It seems only a few weeks since we had almost perpetual pro-Palestinian demonstrations in our towns.
Thousands of people ambled about with Palestinian flags, shouting slogans.
Humza Yousaf was scarcely absent from the media or social media, condemning Israelis and also the British government.
For two weeks now there have been massive demonstrations in Iran, not only in Tehran but also in a huge number of provincial towns and cities.
Iranians have found a voice, and are desperate to be rid of the murderous rule of the mullahs.
Where are the demonstrations in favour of these courageous oppressed people?
Are they not worthy of support for some reason?
Is it because their oppressors are their own country's people and not Israelis?
It took until a few days ago for the BBC to report, with film, the insurrection that is under way in Iran.
I am not aware of Humza Yousaf wishing the rebels well.
John Swinney has not sent a message of support, to try to show that he is a world leader.
What does it all mean?
As Mrs Thatcher used to say, “It’s a funny old world.”
And not in a good way.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
More letters...
Humanist ethos is one of love, respect, tolerance and equality for all
Do not abandon our faith in democracy
Tax credit U-turn was lurch to the left
This land is our land
Stan Grodynski advocates sending a UK carrier to Greenland to prevent Trumpian encroachment (Herald Letters, January 9).
Well, I look forward to seeing him aboard HMS Sitting Duck with his fingers freezing.
Seriously though, the global issue of the ownership of natural resources (including land) will, in our nuclear age, very soon determine humanity's future.
We have to embrace the concept of earth-sharing (already established in Antarctica's semi-recognition as 'res communis', i.e. public property), and reject claims of absolute entitlement to any portion of the Creation, either by states or by dogmatic religions.
Such human hubris invites retribution.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Indy supporters aren’t all SNP fans
Willie Maclean (Herald Letters, January 8) rightly, in my opinion, refutes an earlier claim that a newly independent Scotland would be a forever one-party state, ruled by the SNP.
In the 2014 independence referendum over 1.6 million people voted ‘Yes’ to independence.
When this vote went the wrong way, and folk found themselves disgusted with the misinformation and gaslighting from some supporters of the Better Together campaign, membership of the SNP rose considerably.
It reached a peak of over 125,000 members, a mere fraction of those who voted for independence.
Membership now stands at less than 60,000.
It is still the largest party in Scotland, by membership, to a great extent, though it is dwarfed by the number of folk - myself included - who vote SNP with the view to gaining independence.
Following which we'll look at the new parties standing for election in Holyrood, and the candidates and policies they offer.
I genuinely hope that there will be a Scottish version of what was once the party of the people, formerly known as the Labour party.
Also a genuine Conservative party that folk can choose, amongst other parties.
By this I mean no more branch-office stooges from the London parties, who all too often seem to want Holyrood to fail, rather than help to get the best from our Parliament.
Ian Waugh, Dumfries.
Global affairs not Nats forte
Those who so often criticise the SNP, should remember that it started as a single-issue pressure group, and its parochial members now find themselves having to manage significant aspects of Scotland’s affairs, without training or previous experience.
Independence would certainly require a global mindset, which is probably why successive leaders – Ms Sturgeon in particular - have avoided that step into the political big time.
Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross-shire.
Tax changes needed
Like Andy Maciver, I listened to John Swinney's recent chat with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart on The Rest is Politics podcast (“Budget day will reveal if John Swinney is a caretaker or a changemaker”, The Herald, January 9).
It was obvious, afterwards, that both of the hosts were perplexed by the fact that they had been unable to land a blow on Mr Swinney, who had conducted himself with calmness and confidence throughout.
Mr Maciver went on to offer helpful advice by identifying taxation of high earners as a weakness in Scotland's fiscal policy.
He failed, however, to explain why the effective rate of income tax paid by high earners can be fourteen times greater than that for low earners.
This is entirely due to the system of tax bands and thresholds which allows employers to pay poverty wages to the lower paid, who pay no tax on their first £12,500.
Higher earners bear an unfair proportion of the tax burden in consequence. Our income tax is actually a wealth tax of sorts.
A flat rate of tax on all earned income would be fair, with everyone paying the same percentage of their earnings.
Employers would not get away with poverty wages and the need for ‘film star’ wages at the high end would be reduced.
This transition would have to take place gradually over a period of time, but a commitment to a change in direction would be a significant objective for an independent Scotland.
Willie Maclean, Milngavie.
Brexit does impact Scots
Any logic in Ian Moir’s statement that “the Scottish economy is largely immune to the Brexit effect” (Letters, January 9), totally escapes me.
Unlike Ireland, Scotland is not yet independent, and as long as around 60% of Scotland’s trade is with England (predominantly in services) it would seem naïve to believe that a fall in UK GDP of possibly as much as 10% due to Brexit does not negatively impact on that trade, as well as on UK and Scottish tax receipts.
(With knock-on detrimental effects on public services.)
In addition, the increased costs and regressive consequences associated with much greater bureaucracy for Scottish businesses in trading with our European neighbours, along with restrictions on free movement, should not be under-estimated.
Perhaps in the contradiction of his own arguments Mr Moir will recognize that he has perhaps been listening to too much misleading political rhetoric.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian.
Four day week, weak idea
With the Scottish budget due to be presented on Tuesday, there are already rumblings about local authorities having to increase their council rate bills by up to 15%, while also cutting costs drastically.
In what sane world would Edinburgh City council therefore be considering introducing a four-day week for employees (“Switching to a four-day week ‘could cost city council millions’”, The Herald, January 9).
No doubt there are many advantages for the employees, but at what financial cost to Edinburgh city residents?
Local authorities provide many services that can’t be curtailed to four days.
An estimate by Scottish Joint Council for Local Government Employees shows this would increase the annual cost of just three services, pupil support, care homes and home care by £7.41 million.
In an ideal world, why not consider reducing the working week to four days.
But at a time when many Scots struggle to pay rent, energy costs etc, who would think this sensible?
Do councillors and politicians have their common sense removed on election?
Jane Lax, Aberlour.
Share