ELIZABETH Scott demonstrates with her letter (October 12) that Nicola Sturgeon has managed to turn the language against those who disagree with independence, because she finds herself agreeing with the Prime Minister’s choice of words. Large swaths of people across the UK appear to be ‘hated’ for supporting an alternative view.
Just in case I don’t fit her caricature of a modern day Tory, and maybe I’m a lifelong Labor supporter, she goes on to repeat the SNP line that they’re essentially the same thing.
The truth is that I am a floating voter, too often forced in recent years to vote for the least worst candidate.
Ms Scott may have heard Nicola Sturgeon’s conference speech in which she urged her supporters to reach out to those still unconvinced of the arguments for independence. Personally, I find myself rather reluctant to take life advice from someone who seems to “hate” me and everything I stand for.
Keith Howel, Linton West
The hypocrisy of the SNP
ADAM Tomkins (“Nationalists Lose Whatever Courts Decide”, The Herald, October 12) asks the question: “Why did the Nationalists take the case (for a new referendum) to the Supreme Court?”. The most obvious response would seem to be their penchant for objecting to the outcome of a democratic referendum, with demands for the process to be repeated until the outcome is to their liking.
Since the 2014 referendum result, the SNP has acted in the image of Donald Trump and his MAGA fanatics, refusing to accept the wishes of the majority of voters. His claims to “fight for democracy” are the epitome of hypocrisy.
Of those who applaud Nicola Sturgeon’s declared hatred of the Tories, have they asked if she approved of her parents’ purchase of their council house, courtesy of Margaret Thatcher? The SNP government subsequently ended the ‘right to buy’ for Scottish council tenants and its admirers are assumed to applaud such hypocrisy.
Michael Clayton, Cashmere
• I have tried to argue for some years that a new independence referendum is the only way to end Scotland’s constitutional stalemate. Adam Tomkins (“Nationalists lose whatever the court decides”, The Herald, October 12) writes that the only losers in the Supreme Court hearing will be the “Nationalists”.
Mr Tomkins seems to think that the continued (colonial?) suppression of Scotland’s elected voice will end well one way or another, and the alternatives to independence simply do not exist. Scotland is denied its “right to self-determination”. Federalism would not work because of the size and indifference of England. Confederalism could do it, but at a time when Ireland is hosting a major reunification conference, Labor Wales is setting up a constitutional commission (to include independence) and half of Scotland backs secession , the political leaders of the United Kingdom cannot envisage anything other than the “sovereignty of 17th century Westminster”. ”. This as the UK continues its decades-long economic decline, stunted by Scottish oil and gas, and now by our renewables. Is that why we don’t have a say?
GR Weir, Ochilles
• I was thinking about changing circumstances that would affect how people would vote in an election.
If the performance of a political party in power, in the UK, Scotland or in a particular council, threatened the well-being of its constituents, it should expect to be replaced. Election results don’t last a generation, why should referendum results? The weather is changing.
Allan McDougall, Neilston
Where are we going?
At the Tory conference recently, the slogan prominently displayed throughout was ‘Get Britain moving’.
Unfortunately, they forgot to mention in which direction they planned to move Britain. It is now becoming clearer day by day.
Nigel Dewar Gibb, Glasgow
Why not follow King’s lead?
KING Charles felt that drastic cuts had to be made in the budget for his coronation next year (“The new king will be crowned 6th May next year”, The Herald, 12 October).
If only the SNP/Green administration who currently presides over our affairs in Scotland had the same respect for taxpayers’ money in these times of national restriction. I don’t see the Nationalist budget for new bogus embassies or overseas jaunts by the various entourages sent by the SNP, or the £20m referendum fund, affected.
Our taxes needlessly spent on SNP pomp and ceremony don’t seem to bother them in the least.
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh
One rule for them, another for us
IN August, amid a protracted, tedious and utterly undemocratic contest to see which of the latest list of bare-bones, ambitious Tory prime ministers would inherit the keys to 10 Downing Street, then-candidate and now-incumbent Liz Truss was revealed in a leaked audio recording, to be of the opinion that “British workers needed more graft”, which may or may not be the case, but, in any case, this typically conservative trope exposes for all to see the UK’s most deeply rooted socio-economic fault line, a microcosm of an inherent ‘them and us’ divide between capital and labor that dates back even before the Industrial Revolution, its origins firmly rooted in a feudal system of governance that the country has never fully addressed, let alone rectified.
Essentially, and backed to the bitter end by the Prime Minister’s new choice as Business Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a disturbing throwback to the days of imperious, all-powerful owners of mills and mines, Mrs Truss blames clearly the UK’s historically slow productivity on the doorstep of decent, honest and hardworking British workers who they believe are choosing not to put their individual and collective shoulders into the UK’s economic wheel, which I repeat, may or may not be true.
But it is a fact that while modern and dynamic economies such as Germany, Sweden, France and 12 other EU states all have legal requirements for worker representation on boards of directors, the United Kingdom, as well as countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta still ostensibly exploit an archaic version of 21st century feudalism, with workers seen, at best, as a necessary evil, a readily available asset , their sole purpose, to invest body and soul in the enrichment of conservative business owners.
And the absurdity of UK industrial relations in 2022 is certainly underscored by the fact that Ms Truss’ Prime Minister’s predecessor, Boris Johnson, is entitled to an annual allowance – paid from the public purse – of 115,000 £ for the cost of his private office. , so-called Public Duty Costs, almost four times the average UK annual salary of £31,000, and for life, or as long as he continues to undertake these unspecified “public duties” (“Boris Johnson could to claim former Prime Minister’s allowance of up to £115,000 a year”, heraldscotland, September 6).
Given that this is a man who was actually fired for gross misconduct, being prosecuted by police for violating the Covid-19 restrictions he himself imposed on the rest of the nation, and who is under active investigation by a Parliamentary Standards Committee accused of lying to Parliament, is it any wonder that British workers can – consciously or subliminally – abstain a bit from graft on behalf of the country when there is clearly a rule for them and an entirely different – and beneficial – set of rules applicable to the government of the UK “elite?”
Mike Wilson, Longniddry
The visa plan poses problems
The hospitality industry, particularly in rural Scotland, suffers from a shortage of labour. I don’t see how easing visa restrictions alone will solve this problem, as the available local workforce is unwilling to accept the low wages on offer, and most jobs will be seasonal in nature (“Brexit quoted as tourism chief calls for changes to immigration rules,” The Herald, October 11).
There is also a long-standing issue with affordable housing, forcing young locals entering the workforce without a stable job or work base to leave the area. Where are these visa applicants going to stay, and what infrastructure is there to keep them long-term if we can’t even retain those who already live there and are ready to flee the family nest?
George Dale, Beth
Read more letters: I was once proud of the Conservatives. How could I be now?
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to modify submissions.