Sir, Nicola Sturgeon’s claim that Jim Murphy’s argument that only Labour is capable of keeping the Conservatives out of power is “an insult to the intelligence of the Scottish people” while she simultaneously asks us to believe that voting for the SNP to hold the balance of power in Westminster would unite “yes” and “no” voters in the belief it would benefit Scotland, really takes the biscuit.
This political sleight of hand spouted by Ms Sturgeon is clearly vintage Alex Salmond whom, I suspect, is most definitely pulling the strings. The thought of an SNP group under Mr Salmond controlling the Labour Party, Westminster and Holyrood would surely propel the British electorate into returning the Conservatives with a landslide majority.
With their prospects of wooing the Scottish voters into accepting their fantasies of a prosperous, stable and secure Scotland outwith the union now blown out the water, the separatists have resorted to a convoluted doublespeak that will fool no one but their own fanatical supporters.
Let’s ask the separatists to be honest. Their only motivation in holding the balance of power in Westminster is to render the governance of the United Kingdom untenable in the shortest possible timescale with the ultimate goal of causing division, discontent and their hoped-for break-up of Britain.
To ask the 2.1 million Scots who voted to maintain the union to believe that voting large numbers of SNP members into Parliament would somehow unite us, shows utter contempt for our ability to think and vote practically or intelligently on our future prospects and wishes. If Ms Sturgeon wishes those who voted “no” to unite and support her current strategy, then I suggest she accepts the sovereign will of the Scottish people and drop her demands for separation for the foreseeable future.
As Mr Salmond said on September 14 2014, the independence vote was a “once in a generation” opportunity as he pledged not to bring back another referendum if Scots chose to remain in the UK.
Iain G Richmond. Guildy House, Monikie.
The same Tories, Jim?
Sir, So Jim Murphy, as predicted, is peddling the myth, that a vote for the SNP is a vote for those nasty Tories.
Are those the same Tories, with whom he stood shoulder to shoulder, endorsing every negative vibe they projected at Scotland?
Are those the same Tories he was cuddling up to throughout the referendum campaign?
Can it be that the Tories have changed their spots?
Or, is it that Mr Murphy has more faces than Big Ben?
After all he claims he believes in an independent Scottish Labour Party, but not an independent Scotland.
Joseph G Miller. 44 Gardeners Street, Dunfermline.
Misleading statements
Sir, Re Fife Council’s misleading Pipeland “justification”, I attended the Court of Session and heard the misleading statements made for Fife Council (your accurate report, December 18) insinuating Langlands’ failure was wholly the university’s fault; citing North Haugh’s “flood-risk”, but omitting Pipeland’s worse history; complaining a Haugh underpass was not mentioned before, but ignoring its own 2012 site options reference; and repeating its non-like-for-like price comparisons.
It multiplies Pipeland’s agricultural value (£143k) by 12 to meet the landowner’s £1.7 million “development value” demand (surprisingly agreed by the district valuer), but compares South Street’s development value with the Haugh’s agricultural value. Applying the same multiplier to the 14-acre Haugh equates its value to South Street’s 4.5-acres, validating the university’s exchange offer.
It wrongly claimed its distributor road would run “through North Haugh making it too small for the school” (it would lie outside the Haugh’s boundary).
Throughout 2013 it never explained North Haugh’s “fundamental unsuitability” until admitting on March 20 2014 their excuse was an absurd “split-site” definition (rightly repudiated by the judge in the PEO court hearing). And the council’s counsel mixed up Pipeland and North Haugh by saying pupils would still require to be bussed to Station Park from North Haugh!
Fife Council’s four criteria availability (now agreed); affordability (as above, plus “lifetime-best-value”); deliverability (minimal planning issues, less complex/costly construction and drainage); and feasibility (confirmed by Dundee consultants Elders Engineering) are all met by North Haugh far more than Pipeland.
John Birkett. 12 Horseleys Park, St. Andrews.
A supposed man of God
Sir, During the season of goodwill to all, it was nothing short of a disgrace to be subjected to the views of the Rev Dr Cameron (letters 29/12), a supposed man of God, who doesn’t seem to fully understand the teachings of his mentor.
Jesus Christ was never known to turn away anyone in need and there is no record of any obligatory pre-requirement of contributions for his services.
To satisfy Dr Cameron’s obligatory requirement for contributions, and by this he means financial ones, to his Santa Claus state, requires the contributors to have the necessary means to enable them do so.
Instead we have a situation where unemployment figures are favourably massaged in the government’s favour by zero hours contracts and people struggling to make a living wage by being forced into self-employment by welfare system reforms.
Only when the state enables businesses to create proper jobs and insists on the payment of a living wage will we be left with cases of undisputed need, whose circumstances will be seen to prevent them from making contributions towards their requirement for welfare support.
Anybody who has no need or has never had the need for welfare support would do well to remember the old saying, “there but for the grace of God go I” and especially those who claim to be a Christian.
Allan A MacDougall. 37 Forth Park, Bridge of Allan.
Lost sight of core ethos
Sir, Mr Arnott (letters, January 5) is concerned that WWF Scotland has become a propaganda machine for the renewables industry and has moved away from its core ethos. He makes a good point.
WWF began life in 1961 as The World Wildlife Fund making use of the Giant Panda as its symbolic logo. The continued use of this logo today can lead to some confusion as to its present role and purpose. Today the initials stand for The World Wide Fund for Nature although, somewhat confusingly, in Canada and the United States it is still known as the World Wildlife Fund.
That change took place in 1986 almost unnoticed. In 1996 WWF obtained general consultative status from UNESCO along with other international non governmental organisations.
Today it is considered to be the world’s largest conservation organisation and receives funding from many sources such as The World Bank and the international development departments of both the United Kingdom and the US.
Their charitable status has led to yet another major change as they have formed corporate partnerships with big business which will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest.
Marion Lang. Westermost, Coaltown of Callange, Ceres, Cupar.
Horrified by speed limit
Sir, Despite a total lack of speed limit signs in Caird Park, Dundee, I have always assumed that the 10mph limit which is in the management rules for parks would apply there. With new signs being erected on the Kingsway I was horrified to discover a 30mph limit in Mains Loan where it runs through the park despite the road also being the only footpath through the centre of the park,
John M Richmond. 12 Shamrock Street, Dundee.
How do they manage?
Sir, I wish people would be a little more thoughtful, Scotland does not rely on one source of income namely oil. It has a variety of sectors which make up the GDP of Scotland, finance, ship building, agriculture, whisky, electricity export, tourism and others.
Scotland is no different to other countries of similar population and GDP such as Denmark which enjoys a good standard of living and welfare comparable to Scotland.
Overall it may have higher taxation than the UK, but they as a whole accept it. They do not have higher unemployment than us, which is around 7%, though some people think they do because of slightly higher taxation, it is much the same as the UK and other northern European countries.
No one has been able to explain to me how countries such as Denmark exist when I ask them, so I am open to answers.
David W Fenwick. 4/1 The Granary, West Mill Street, Perth.
Puzzled by comparison
Sir, I was surprised by the letter from Isobel and Charles Wardrop citing the Byre Theatre of St Andrews as an example of “the right way to revive old buildings” in the context of the future of Perth City Hall.
The present Byre Theatre was completed, at a cost of £5 million, in 2001, after the demolition of the previous 1970 building (plus adjoining houses), which in turn had replaced the old cow byre where the theatre started in 1933.
I am puzzled, therefore, as to how the current 14-year-old structure, whose design was the result of an architectural competition, can, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a revived old building?
Ann Liston. 5 Whitehill Terrace, Largo Road, St Andrews.
Ban the party system . . .
Sir, Robert Lightband makes a very good point about democracy although I suspect for wrong reasons.
David Cameron sat down with Alex Salmond and agreed to a referendum without a mandate from the British electorate. He has now sat down with Nicola Sturgeon and agreed to allow 16-year-olds (only in Scotland) the vote before the next election.
Is this democracy, or does the party system create temporary dictators who can change things for ever?
There are many other examples and it is not relevant to say the country agrees with the decisions because that should be tested.
If the party system is to be kept, and I think it should be banned, all policies should be summarised on the ballot paper and it should be illegal to have a new one unless in a national emergency.
Politicians in councils and government no longer represent the public, they represent their party and the media.
RJ Soutar. 37 Camperdown Street, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Right to continue to campaign
Sir, In a recent letter Colin Cookson said that Nicola Sturgeon was not able to accept the referendum result and the democratic will of the majority.
Surely it is the right of any political party to be able to continue to campaign for what they believe in?
For example the Tories have virtually been wiped out in Scotland but they still put forward their views and campaign for their cause.
Likewise other parties that have lost their deposit in elections come back and try to regain support from the electorate.
John Johnston. Annfield Farm, Dunfermline.
Fiscal policy was wrong
Sir, Friday’s Courier carried an advert for an in-depth interview with our former first minister. I thought this may make interesting reading and then turned the page only to find on page 13 a story that falling oil prices will cost jobs.
I trust that our former first minister will at least have the decency to admit that his fiscal policy for an independent Scotland was wrong.
A country needs more than one, extremely volatile, source of income to make it independent.
Willie Robertson. Grianan, Lynton, Stanley, Perthshire.