Sir, – Anthony Garrett (June 12) is shocked that calls are continuing for Alistair Carmichael to step down. He attributes this to a vendetta being waged by the SNP.
Mr Garrett attempts to reinforce his argument by claiming that the 50% of Scots who didn’t vote for the SNP should be fearful of living in a one-party state where to step out of line brings official retribution.
He accepts that Mr Carmichael is in the wrong, while sadly planting a mischievous claim concerning Nicola Sturgeon’s input at the meeting Mr Carmichael used to smear our First Minister, in spite of the French politicians present categorically denying the content of the memo leaked by Mr Carmichael was accurate.
Mr Garrett then pleads for leniency, using Malcolm Bruce’s argument that we all lie at some point, politicians especially so it seems.
Mr Garrett is wrong on all points.
Firstly, it is not only SNP supporters in Orkney and Shetland who wish Mr Carmichael to go, in spite of the spin various unionist parties are putting on this.
Secondly, Alistair Carmichael denied his involvement, straight faced, to everyone, even when asked directly on national television.
His riposte was to wait for the findings of the inquiry investigating his own actions. Perhaps he hoped the old boys Better Together network would protect him.
If Mr Garrett believes such an individual is to be preferred purely because he represents a party other than the SNP, then I really do fear for democracy in Scotland today.
That Mr Carmichael is still hanging on is a disgrace. When Stewart Stevenson, a liked and efficient transport minister, was hounded out of office in the wake of the unusually ferocious winter storms in 2010, the Liberal
Democrat leader Tavish Scott was one of the unrelenting chasing pack.
The storm over Mr Carmichael’s head isn’t God sent, he brought it on himself.
Thirdly, we do not live in a one-party state as Mr Garrett claims. We have many parties to choose from.
To blame the SNP for the inadequacies of their opponents and accuse them of dictatorship is nonsensical.
If Scots have finally lost patience with the unionist cabal then the subsequent results are entirely of their own making.
Incidentally, I recall no such complaints from unionists when Scots sent Labour members down to Westminster in such numbers.
Ken Clark. 335 King Street, Broughty Ferry.
Move on from election defeat
Sir, – With reference to Anthony Garrett (June 12), is there no end to the constant whining from the Liberal Democrats about the SNP?
I would freely admit that the SNP are all, without exception, really bad, bad, very bad people and can confirm that they really do eat babies even when they’re not hungry.
I would also accept that Alistair Carmichael never told lies, and if he did they were really totty wee ones, and anyway, everybody does it and that even if he did he should keep his job.
I also freely admit that the SNP stole the last election by using the dirty trick of having loads of people vote for them instead of Labour or the Liberal Democrats and that this is a right liberty and should not be tolerated.
There, now that it has been said, can we move on please?
George White. 2 Cupar Road, Auchtermuchty.
Party organiser will be back
Sir, – So Mr Nasty, once the convener for the SNP Skye and Lochalsh branch has resigned and is said to be no longer a member of the party.
But don’t be surprised if it he is let back in and even selected as a SNP candidate for the Holyrood elections next year .
After all, those SNP councillors who displayed a Nazi-type book burning of the Smith Commission report were only out the door for the length of time it takes to grow a ginger beer plant.
Colin Cookson. Hatton Green, Stenton, Glenrothes.
Votes for teens a childish notion
Sir, – With reference to Alex Salmond’s comments on votes for children (June 13) it would be interesting to know how many countries in the world give equal voting rights to 16-year-olds in matters of important constitutional and economic policy issues.
The Salmond initiative in the Scottish Referendum, to give voting rights to children, was simply a cynical attempt to win the referendum campaign by hook or by crook.
I am actually surprised that he did not come up with the idea of organising seances so that he could also capture the votes of the departed.
Nowhere should we have 16-year-olds making decisions on issues of constitution or economy, the reason being their limitation of life experience as they are developing.
No problem with straw polls, but the real thing, which has binding effect on important national issues is a different matter altogether.
Ask the Chinese who continue to value the wisdom of age.
Mr Salmond seems to be regressing.
The older he gets, the more childish his ideas become.
At this rate he risks becoming so increasingly and opportunistically childish in his thinking that he risks falling below the 16-year-old conscience threshold and losing his own voting rights.
Derek Farmer. Knightsward Farm, Anstruther.
Fiscal autonomy is the answer
Sir, – The report from the Office for Budget Responsibility predicting a dramatic decline in North Sea oil revenues and concluding that this has dealt a blow to SNP proposals for full fiscal autonomy should be taken with more than a pinch of salt (June 12).
The OBR’s track record on predicting economic performance leaves a lot to be desired and it itself admits that “these figures are subject to considerable uncertainty”.
According to the Government Expenditure and Revenue Statistics (GERS) Scotland’s budget deficit is 8.1% of GDP compared with a UK deficit of 5.6%, but that is within the current Union. And let us not forget that in previous years the UK deficit has exceeded the Scottish deficit by a similar margin.
What the figures highlight is that Scotland is indeed a prosperous country. However, it is difficult to fine tune our economy, as these figures clearly point out, without the necessary fiscal levers of power. And these will not be delivered through the Smith Commission proposals.
Only with full fiscal autonomy will we be able to remove ourselves from the straitjacket of the UK.
Alex Orr. 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.
Brown’s expense claims valid
Sir, – I was disappointed to read your article (June 12) about Gordon Brown’s expense claims, Ink stink sees Brown spend £732 for pen refills.
The article appeared to take issue with Mr Brown’s use of specialist pens to help with his well-publicised and well-know eyesight problems.
We should be supporting anyone with specific needs to do their jobs, rather than demonising them.
By placing special in quotes, referring to favourite pens and copious notes, the article insinuates that the pens are not necessary for him to do his job effectively.
This reinforces the stigma around disabilities.
It is completely appropriate for an MP with sight issues to claim expenses for specialist stationery to allow him to carry out his duties effectively.
Instead of belittling Mr Brown’s hard work for his constituents and suggesting that there is an issue with his expenses claim, The Courier should be a champion for the rights of disabled workers in Tayside and help to break down the stigma around disability.
Sanjay Samani. Viewpark, Meethill Road, Alyth.
Contemptuous response
Sir, – In the article headed, Stepal accused of scraping the barrel on Madras College appeal, (June 11) Parent Voice spokesman Chris Wallard refers to St Andrews Environmental Protection Association’s grounds of appeal as farcical.
His implied criticism of Stepal’s lawyers and of the Court of Session, which has accepted the appeal, is surely verging on contempt of court.
As part of the appeal process, the document setting out the grounds of appeal will have been sent by Stepal’s lawyers to Hermiston Securities and Fife Council, the other parties involved.
Visitors who can prove an interest can look at the document at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
Any lawful copy issued by the Court of Session would have the court’s official stamp on it.
May I ask where Mr Wallard got this information from?
P. M. Uprichard. Little Ridge, Hepburn Gardens, St Andrews.
No call for disrespect
Sir, – Your correspondent Gordon Dilworth of Pitlochry, in his letter (June 11) about how to refer to Pope Francis in print, uses four reasons why my letter about heads of state should not be taken seriously.
A head of state, such as Queen Elizabeth and Pope Francis, deserves to be given the respect of their office.
His correction that Nicola Sturgeon is not a head of state simply amplifies my contention that if she is always referred to as Nicola Sturgeon or Ms Sturgeon or First Minister in printed material we should expect equality in referring to the pope as Pope Francis.
Familiarity is not in question in either case.
Mr Dilworth, to his credit, agreed that calling the pope a familiar name like Frank did not enhance Mike Donachie’s article, be it a news item or an opinion piece.
Many readers would have found this use of Frank disrespectful.
I have to agree that Pope Francis would not like pompous stuffiness.
I am sure he would have had a quiet chuckle at the letters written, however, that is no reason to show disrespect.
Philip Kearns. 47 Grove Road Dundee.