Everything is done on party lines.
There is little evidence of individual MSPs having influence on what is decided. Those who dare to disagree with the leadership are rapidly sidelined.
Ministers are moved from department to department without showing any particular aptitude for the role.
If no party wins the majority of seats at the next election, is it too much to hope for that parties will work together? Or is it more likely that horse trading will be done to keep the SNP in power?
Gordon W Smith, Paisley.
When smaller is better
Guy Stenhouse (“Sorry, Scotland, but this is why the economic success story in Ireland is not what it seems”, The Herald, September 6) treads the path taken by others of your columnists and correspondents in recent months in arguing that the case for Scottish independence is weakened because, rather than being a “trump card” for independence supporters, Ireland’s economic performance is less stellar than they would argue and, in any case, “is not capable of being repeated”.
The economic case for independence does not, however, depend on everything being rosy in the Irish economic garden. Those of us who make the case that Ireland’s economic success since the 1980s is in large part down to the transformation in the Irish economy achieved by winning large amounts of inward investment through the country’s low corporation tax regime, and then using that success to develop the skills and entrepreneurship so evident in its current economic performance, aren’t arguing that Scotland should try to do today precisely what Ireland did 40 years ago, even if it were possible to do so.
Read more letters
The issue is that small, independent European countries, across the piece, both inside and outside the EU, perform better for the economic well-being of their citizens than we do as part of the UK. They do so because their independence allows them to take the economic, education and social policy decisions appropriate for the circumstances they face at the time they face them. Improvements in Scotland’s economic performance today don’t depend on us repeating Ireland’s corporation tax decisions from four and a half decades ago any more than they do on us repeating Norway’s sovereign wealth fund decisions from three and a half decades ago. But they do depend on us having the appropriate degree of sovereignty to take the right decisions at the right time for the economic circumstances we face going forward.
Accusations of “cherry-picking” often accompany criticisms of those comparing Scotland’s economic performance to Ireland’s, or for that matter other European countries. The hard truth for opponents of Scottish independence to swallow is that, across the piece, most small independent European countries perform better economically for their citizens than Scotland has succeeded in doing within the UK. Of course, there will be parts of their economies or periods of time in which they don’t outshine us, but any fair-minded appraisal will conclude that across the decades and across a wide range of economic (and, as a result, other societal) indicators, we have been and continue to be outperformed by the Irelands, Norways, Finlands, Denmarks and Icelands of this world.
Martin Togneri, Linlithgow.
UN date for Scotland
Although little advertised or reported, a UN conference in Geneva will soon address Scotland’s right to self-determination. Scotland, a nation with the oldest flag in Europe, continues to face Westminster’s refusal to acknowledge its sovereignty – a refusal driven by fear that recognition would embolden nationalists and legitimise their claims. England also blocks Scotland from appearing as a distinct country at the United Nations. To admit otherwise would open the door to sovereignty. Scotland’s exclusion from the UN’s list of non-self-governing territories in 1954 was no accident; it was a calculated move to preserve the colonial concept of union.
From September 23–29 the UN conference in Geneva will revisit these issues under the broader theme of human rights, specifically Scotland’s right to self-determination under international law. This challenges the long-held fiction of an “equal union”.
Recognition of Scotland’s sovereignty is not a question of if, but when. With it will come calls for reparation of plundered assets and international recognition of Scotland’s right to choose its own future.
Herbert Petrie, Aberdeen.
Virtue signalling
It has been interesting to read the various interpretations of the flying of the flag of the UK and those of its constituent Home Nations.
The attitude of various Scottish Nationalists is especially amusing, being something like “unlike others, we don’t fly our flag to show we are better than other people. We do it to show that we are better than the people who do that”.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow.
Banning what doesn’t exist
I see that Green MSP Mark Ruskell wants to introduce a member’s bill to ban greyhound racing (“Support for end to hound racing”, The Herald, September 8).
I have news for him: there is no greyhound racing in Scotland. Is it a waste of taxpayers’ money to debate banning something that doesn’t exist ?
Michael Watson, Rutherglen.
Halt the dash for wind
Andy Maciver’s article about energy policy in Scotland (“Is an energy policy for Scotland that creates jobs and cuts bills too much to ask?”, The Herald, September 5) ended, to my disappointment, with well-used slogans: “Drill, baby, drill”, (guess who said that?), and “Blow, baby blow”.
One paragraph drew attention to the complexities of the energy supply issue, suggesting that “the technicalities are double Dutch to Mr & Mrs Ordinary”. I bet that is right. That could include the issue of constraint payments to wind farm developers, the infamous so-called bribes offered to impacted communities, and the present open door policy allowing foreign companies to build and profit from wind turbines on our hills, while our bills continue to rise.
It seems to me that one issue which is not being discussed sensibly may be due to a current UK assumption that renewables = wind power. Why? Surely this is the big mistake.
Other renewables such as hydro, micro-hydro, tidal, wave and solar – until recently known as the “basket of renewables” – are indeed available, and if sensibly deployed could greatly assist energy production and also help baseline generation, which is one of the massive problems with wind. Only wind power causes acute problems of landscape damage affecting vast areas, not least because they are built on high ground and nowadays ridiculous sizes of turbines (often over 650ft , twice the height of Big Ben) are being proposed and even built. Beyond that, our present planning system actually allows developers/landowners to submit repeat applications for the same site – even when a site has already been thoroughly examined and refused at a public inquiry.
Should we crack down on new wind farm applications? (Image: PA)
For a country like Scotland, justifiably famous worldwide for its quality landscapes and heritage, I would suggest that applications to build giant wind turbines can and should be subject to strict controls. In sensitive areas, such applications should be refused early on in the process, without hesitation.
I presume the “dash for wind” is happening because the UK likes a quick and cheap fix. Some of the alternative renewable options can initially be more expensive and may take slightly longer to build, but in the medium and longer term would provide a much more sustainable and more effective form of energy generation, avoiding the serious landscape damage (and often damage to peatland) caused by industrial wind turbines.
I suggest it is time that the Scottish Government revised planning policy urgently to protect all sensitive areas from inappropriate industrial wind farms as a top priority, giving precedence instead to alternative projects in the basket of renewables.
Philip Norris, Hunter’s Quay, Argyll.