IS NICOLA STURGEON not getting a wee bit too big for her boots? (“The SNP is already sending shivers down Westminster spines”, Comment, last week). She postulates removing Trident ( or its replacement ) without regard to the fact that it defends all of Britain and, in case she has forgotten, we recently voted to stay as part of Britain despite her protestations about Trident, etc, at the time. She therefore does not have a mandate, even from the Scots, to alter British national policy. Her attitude threatens the safety of all Britons, especially given Vladimir Putin’s stance. How is this a progressive or fair policy?
Gerald Edwards, Glasgow
SNP Won’t take no for an answer
Sturgeon and the SNP seem to belong to the Humpty Dumpty school of thought — acting as if words mean what they want them to mean. This applies particularly to democracy. Want to separate from the UK? They say it’s democratic to do it with a simple majority only. Pull out of the EU? They say it’s democratic only if each constituent country agrees.
The majority of Scots — 55% of those voting, and all but three constituencies — voted against independence. The SNP thinks it’s democratic to push it through by other means, maintaining the “no” voters “can be persuaded”. The party also claims to represent the will of the Scottish people — and the media and other parties seem to be falling for this — when the only wishes tested objectively have been on independence, which was rejected decisively. Or maybe it isn’t trying to redefine democracy, just ignore it.
Cynthia Shuken, Edinburgh
Advertisement
In referring to the costs and expenses as £130,000 per peer, Dominic Lawson is somewhat disingenuous (“The best House of Lords that money can buy”, Comment, last week). The majority of those costs are fixed ones, including maintenance of the building, payment to the Metropolitan police for security and the costs of permanent house staff, none of which is directly proportional to the number of peers. The actual costs of personal expenses and allowances of peers last year was approximately £28,000 per peer, which equates to about 75p per taxpayer annually or less than half the price of a cup of coffee at a cafe. For that, the government gets nearly 800 “consultants” of unrivalled experience and expertise to scrutinise and revise legislation for the public benefit.
Professor the Lord Trees of the Ross House of Lords
Lawson mentions the possibility of a Labour/SNP coalition in his column). It would great fun to see the highly experienced Scottish bruiser run rings round the naive young man from Hampstead. Alex Salmond would have only one aim - Scottish independence. This outcome would be suicide for Labour and young Ed would go down in history as the leader who led his party to extinction. I do not believe that Cameron should fear the danger of such a coalition. The divisions between the various sects of hard line socialists have always been the most vicious in politics. They would make the splits in the Tory Party look like a disagreement at vicarage tea party.
Charles HowardStroud, Gloucestershire
I notice that Camilla Long gave a less-than-flattering review of “The Second best exotic Marigold hotel” (Culture, last week). I think this is one occasion when it would have been more useful to have heard the opinion of the reviewer’s mother, who had driven two and a half hours in order to see Richard Gere appear in the film.
Dorothy Lewis, Edinburgh
Advertisement
GILLIAN BOWDITCH says “Many pupils are struggling with English, let alone French” (“Jean Brodie knew that education needs good teachers, not policies”, Comment, last week). This is not restricted to primary education. One of the pluses of the influx of young Eastern European workers is the delight in hearing very good English especially in a customer-facing role.
I remember hearing one such employee in a restaurant just off the A9 in Perthshire taking the time to engage in conversation with an elderly gentleman who was waiting for his daughter. Her English was flawless and her conversation skills excellent. On the other hand a Slovakian young man was subcontracted to tile our kitchen. He was extremely polite, his English was very good and he enjoyed conversing. We occasionally meet him in town and now hear the “nae prob”, “how’s it gaun”, “awright” , “nae say bad” and some other colloquialisms which would require the use of asterisks if published.
I now hear that, in some schools, primary pupils,who may be struggling with English, are being taught the Scots language. How confusing for them and how annoying for us of the older generation who claim, at last, to have mastered English.
Alex Murray, Strathspey, Moray
Advertisement
Daniel Johnson’s piece is fundamentally flawed (“Can you live on £67,000?”, Focus, last week) . I agree with his income figures for two parents each earning precisely half of the total, but note that he makes no allowance for the childcare that will probably be an essential part of their lives. Furthermore his assumption of two earners also raises the “stay at home parent” issue where families that have made a conscious choice to support the family on one income are severely penalised for that choice. In the case of the £67,000 family described (or an MP on that income with their partner running the home) the penalty is almost £6,000 per annum in terms of Income Tax and National Insurance and it worsens further as income rises. On your cost figures this leaves the notional family potentially some £600 per month adrift.
Nick Hortin, Houston, Renfrewshire
Advertisement