Madam, – At last an injection of commonsense in to the smacking debate.
The open letter referred to in The Courier must surely reflect the majority view of sensible parents in Scotland (Smacking ban ‘will do nothing to help vulnerable children’, Courier, May 27).
There is a world of difference between smacking a badly behaved child as a last resort and assaulting them.
The children’s minister seems unable to distinguish between the two.
This pointless legislation will not protect one child in Scotland.
Those parents who love and protect their children will continue to do so but will have the ultimate deterrent removed from them.
Those people who beat up their children will simply ignore the legislation, as they do the current laws which should have prevented the recent child deaths caused by parental ill treatment.
A smacking ban would not have saved Mikaeel Kular, Liam Fee or Madison Horn, and it will not save children in the future.
Current laws are more than adequate to protect children.
Parliament should abandon this virtue signalling excercise and find something more productive to occupy itself with.
George Thomson
44 Viewforth Place.
Pittenweem.
Not a yes or no answer to indy
Madam, – The signs are that the SNP will once again try to weigh the terms of any second independence referendum in its favour.
During the preparations for the 2014 referendum Alex Salmond managed to cajole the Electoral Commission to gift the advantage of the Yes response to his side of the argument, even though election experts believe it is worth a few percentage points to have the positive answer in your favour.
Any doubt this was a valuable benefit disappeared during the campaign when the SNP constantly focused on the negativity of their opponents who of course were having to argue the case for No.
In 2016, the Electoral Commission realised its mistake and for the EU referendum changed the question to allow for the more neutral answers of Remain or Leave.
Yet the referendum Bill now making its way through Holyrood is clearly trying to establish a precedent that the previous question used in 2014 can be reused.
If the Electoral Commission is to maintain a reputation for an even handed approach, it must follow its own more up to date view, ensuring any referendum rerun does not benefit one side or the other with a question requiring an obviously negative or positive answer.
Keith Howell.
White Moss,
West Linton.
Sour grapes over EU vote
Madam, – What a sour grapes diatribe from your correspondent William Loneskie (SNP MEP voices will not be heard, Courier, May 28).
His championing of the Brexit cause in the aftermath of its overwhelming rejection by the Scottish electorates smacks not a little of sour grapes. It was indeed a bad night for quite a few, but supporters of both the SNP and Lib Dems will not fall into that category.
It has become abundantly clear to the voting Scot that the EU has become an integral part of our national fabric.
Apart from being the top destination for international exports it is estimated that some 300,000 jobs are involved in the relevant production. Leaving the EU in October or indeed at any other time is something that should not be contemplated.
Colin Mayall.
1 Almond Place,
Comrie.
UK in worse place now
Madam, – Prime ministers are constrained by the politics of the day.
The nature of Brexit, Westminster’s adversarialism and the desire of most MPs to find a way around the referendum result made Theresa May’s task extremely difficult.
Yet she was a hopelessly incompetent premier.
Instead of her moronic “Brexit means Brexit” she should have accepted the result but added that we must establish the possible terms on which we depart, each of which would involve trade-offs.
Instead she brought her Home Office xenophobia to immigration, painted herself into a corner with her “red lines” and wouldn’t let negotiators do their jobs.
The result is her successor inherits a worse situation than she did three years ago.
Rev Dr John Cameron.
10 Howard Place,
St Andrews.
Debate not in public interest
Madam, – This is not the USA and we are not electing a president.
By hosting this debate the BBC is giving unprecedented air time to the Tory Party.
It cannot be argued to be in the public interest as the public have no input or casting vote.
Also, if the BBC is going to be truly impartial, the same air time should be given to all the UK party leaders.
Ian Auchterlonie.
93 Denoon Terrace,
Dundee.
Perth’s Hallsy McHallface?
Madam, – Every time you write about city hall, you are already renaming it (£20m plan could see hall renamed, Courier, May 20).
To everyone who does “know Perth” or has spent time competing in the Perth Festival, it has always been The City Halls.
It is not known as city hall as Fiona Robertson erroneously stated in Jamie Buchan’s report.
There was The Main Hall and The Lesser Hall and the building was called The City Halls, because there was more than one inside!
However, that may still sound like a city chambers or administration building so, no doubt, there will be another name stuck on it.
I do hope it will be worth the huge fee some consultant will inevitably be paid, when any Perthshire citizen could probably do a better job.
Hallsy McHallface? Maybe not.
M-A Cockburn.
Stobswell,
Dundee.
Humiliation for city’s teachers
Madam, – There’s something distasteful about our city council wanting senior teachers to decide how they want to lose their jobs.
How humiliating is that?
E Bignell.
32 Buttars Road,
Dundee.
