Sir, No one should be too surprised at the astonishing diktat, reported in The Courier (March 3), issued by “the bossy madam” of the SNP.
Her MSPs are to sign a pledge to never criticise the SNP hierarchy or government anywhere, ever. The pledge will be topped with some PC cream, that there will be more all-women shortlists, and a nice sop to the public that MSPs must see the job as a full-time commitment.
Well, what can one say? A lot, actually, first of which is that a current MSP and ex- First Minister is not devoting 100% to the job for example, he writes for this newspaper. And he will spend time campaigning for a Westminster seat.
If he can manage it, that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect Richard Branson to stop running his worldwide operations if he became an MP, as he is a man who gets stuff done.
It’s the hypocrisy of the SNP pledge that annoys me they cannot guarantee what they say they wish. But what gives any party the right to tell MSPs or MPs to shut up?
We, the people, elect them to speak for us, to shout out, to scrutinise. We do not authorise them to accept a gag.
And why do the MSPs etc obey? They do so, though, because they cannot be a party candidate without the party’s endorsement the Political Parties and Referendums Act saw to that.
Any falling out of line and a candidate has either to stand as an independent, with no other description or label, or to form a new party.
Little dictators are destroying democracy.
When your MSP votes, can you be sure it is because they believe what they are supporting is right, or because Madam said so?
Voting SNP? Or voting for a clone?
Mike Scott-Hayward. Sawmill House, Kemback Bridge, Fife.
They surely deserve better
Sir, I read with interest your article outlining the current situation with the introduction of new Highers and the reported lack of confidence amongst teachers in providing appropriate course materials and general delivery of the changes.
A straw poll, perhaps, but as an independent tutor of maths and physics I can only concur that a growing disquiet and distrust amongst pupils and parents exists about “school education”.
We may already be too far along the tunnel of these changes to negate the risks involved, but the levels of dis-engagement and poor outcomes are already adversely affecting our young people and their futures. They surely deserve better.
Dr Cameron Ager. 9 Strathmore Avenue, Kirriemuir.
Can’t have it both ways
Sir, I see the church is concerned about the number of people attending services, with the attendant loss of revenue. Your columns have it that the church is blaming church members, reporting the Rev Scott Burton as saying that, “unless this apathy is reversed the church will become a thing of the past”.
Speaking as a one time member of the Church of Scotland, I am forced to ask: why is the church blaming the membership for the apathy? Surely the church should be asking, what are we doing wrong that members are becoming apathetic?
For myself, I have to say I no longer attend because I feel the church has lost its way. It seems to have forgotten its purpose, which is to preach the gospel. Instead it appears to me that it is now a social club for the “unco guid”. The more fundamentalist churches, which are flourishing, have not followed this path but have held on to the original message as declared in the Bible.
It is also losing churchgoers because it no longer preaches a consistent message. On the one hand it tells the churchgoer that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but on the other hand it totally ignores what the Bible says and follows a politically correct course of, for example, appointing female and homosexual ministers.
Let’s face the truth. The church cannot have it both ways. If the Bible is the word of God then you cannot ignore its message, regardless of how politically incorrect it is. If the Bible is no longer considered the very word of God then the church has no basis and loses its raison d’tre!
(Capt) Ian F McRae. 17 Broomwell Gardens, Monikie.
Protecting wildlife?
Sir, It appears nature is fine so long as it is convenient. Like Jim Crumley we too are extremely concerned about the eviction of a pair of ospreys for the sake of T in The Park.
They are not alone. Shockingly, a massive tarpaulin is stopping kingfishers from returning to their nest bank on the proposed site. What on earth is the point of a designation to protect wildlife if it is constantly subverted?
There is a serious principal at stake here and we should not be walking on eggshells (ospreys’ or otherwise).
Sixty years ago we wholeheartedly celebrated the ospreys’ return from the brink of extinction; there are probably few tourist venues now that do not trade on the fact that they have ospreys in their area. We repeat nature is fine so long as it is convenient.
How ironic, then, that the headline act for this year’s event includes Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds, albeit it ones with their wings clipped.
The organisers of T in The Park should persuade Bob Dylan to come for a rendition of his famous “Lay, Lady Lay”. If that particular osprey at Loch of the Lowes does not prove just how revered and important these birds are together with the rest of our precious wildlife then nothing does.
Iomhair Fletcherand Polly Pullar. Aberfeldy.
It’s a war we cannot win
Sir, Alex Salmond opines (Monday’s Courier), that the West is in danger of losing the propaganda war with Islamic State.
Islamic State’s concern to establish a “caliphate”, meaning worldwide rule, is the religiously correct thinking in both Sunni and Shia Islam established by no less a person than the prophet Mohammed himself and now enshrined in Islamic sharia law.
The demographics show it is certain we will lose that war as Colonel Gadaffi told us some years ago. The colonel was not thinking so much of the internet, more of the large discrepancy between Islamic and non-Islamic birth rates.
The Muslim population in Britain is now 2.7 million, up from 1.5 million in 2001, with a third below the age of 15, as reported in The Courier last month. There are 44 million Muslims in Europe. Their voice will be heard and it is likely their opinion will differ from ours.
The few Muslims who have opposed Islamic terrorists show a death-defying bravery since the terrorists can quote the killing verses in the Koran but for a moderate Muslim even to discuss the meaning of the Koranic verses constitutes apostasy, the vilest sin in Islam which carries a death penalty.
There is also no shortage of internationally-known Islamic scholars who promote God’s will to establish peace by conquering all the infidel states through conversion or killing.
The moderate Muslim is surely the first, collaterally-damaged, victim of Islamic terrorism and apparently unable to do anything about it.
Nor is there much we can do demographically speaking or, indeed, politically-speaking, politicians being more concerned to gain votes than to say it as it is.
Andrew Lawson. 9 MacLaren Gardens, Dundee.
Fitting epitaph for Mackay
Sir, George Best described Dave Mackay as: “The hardest and most uncompromising man I ever played against.” That is a fitting epitaph for one of our great professionals.
I thought he was most effective late in his career when Brian Clough played him as a sweeper at Derby County where he could turn defence into attack via an exquisite passing game.
But before that he had a fabulous career at left half with Scotland as well as Hearts and Spurs in what many supporters would claim were the “glory years” of both clubs.
Later as a manager he took unfashionable and poorly funded Derby to a league title and was a well-deserved inaugural inductee of English Football’s Hall of Fame in 2002.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.