Sir, Alan Hinnrichs claims in his letter (April 29), that the Glasgow midwives should not be allowed to opt out of abortion provision. He says that the midwives’ beliefs shouldn’t come before patient care. But what about the care of the unborn baby?
Midwives are taught that they have two patients, not one. Being a midwife is about caring for pregnant women and their babies. When a midwife, or any other medical professional, is asked to be involved in an abortion they are forced to do exactly the opposite of caring for a baby they are required to kill it.
Some people think that there are circumstances where it is alright to kill an unborn baby. If a person doesn’t think that it’s alright to kill a baby surely they shouldn’t be forced to be involved in that killing.
How are midwives to be trained then? To care for women and babies unless the women don’t want the babies to be cared for?
It is perhaps the case that the Glasgow midwives entered their profession before the 1967 Abortion Act was passed safe in the knowledge that they would never be asked not to care for one of their patients.
Even if they became midwives after 1967 they would have gone into midwifery knowing that the Conscientious Objection Clause protected them in their jobs from having to kill babies.
Mr Hinnrichs’ analogy with working in a slaughter house doesn’t work on the level he wants it to since anyone going into that job knows exactly what’s required of them.
However, it is telling that this is the analogy he does draw as it recognises the slaughter of innocent babies in our hospitals. Mr Hinnrichs’ analogy rightly suggests that no-one, midwives included, should be involved in abortion.
Clare McGraw. 12a Castle Terrace, Broughty Ferry.
We would be made weaker
Sir, Almost on a daily basis we discover that the Scottish Nationalist Party is completely unprepared for a situation in which Scotland becomes independent.
In response to searching questions raised by opposition politicians, economists, legal and constitutional experts and, more importantly, 62% of the population of Scotland, the SNP has failed miserably to convince anyone of its ability to “go it alone”.
When questioned about an independent Scotland’s position relative to Europe, NATO, industrial investment, currency, pensions, etc, the SNP has been exposed as being totally disorganised and naive in just about every respect.
We have been subjected to woeful responses from the “big guns” of the SNP, such as Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and, of course, Alex Salmond, about how Scotland would survive in the modern world.
John Swinney, whose documents on the weaknesses of the Scottish economy were leaked, tries to put a brave face on the whole situation, but who would dare to argue with Alex Salmond?
Why should we, the Scottish people, put our trust in a party which cannot give an assurance that Scotland being independent of the UK will bring increased prosperity to the people of Scotland?
In today’s world the UK may be a lesser power than in previous epochs, but that surely points to the fact that to sub-divide it, as Alex Salmond and his followers would advocate, is ill-conceived and, indeed, sheer madness.
Robert I G Scott. Northfield Cottage, Cupar Road, Ceres.
SNP are being presumptuous
Sir, It is odd that your correspondent, Bob Harper, should describe George Osborne’s comments on Sterling as an attack. He was merely making it clear to voters in the coming referendum, that Scotland could not assume there would be a currency union, should it become independent.
Indeed, it is odd that those seeking independence should want a currency union. This would be a strange kind of independence and we have seen how difficult monetary union without political union has proved in the euro zone.
Far from Mr Osborne being presumptuous, it is surely presumptuous of the SNP leadership to think decisions about currency, EU membership and even the position of the Queen can be made by them alone.
It is not for the “Bullingdon boys” (surely a silly term to use) to come up to the table with anything, it is the SNP and its supporters, who seek to break up the union of 300 years, not the British Government.
Elizabeth Lacaille. 32 Crail Place, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
The price is right, so…
Sir, Paul Kelly, Royal Mail’s, delivery director must be living in a different part of the UK to the rest of the poor souls who have to bear the brunt of the recent price hikes.
I presented a small package to go to an address in the UK recently at the Kirriemuir office where I was first informed that the charge would be £2.60 for second class small parcels, which seemed quite reasonable.
Then the lady who was dealing with me produced a cube of cardboard into which she inserted my package. It did not fit completely into this box but showed slightly proud. The postage was then to be in excess of £6, at which point I lost interest and sent it by carrier for less than half and they came to my address to pick it up. So, Mr Kelly, guess who will be delivering my mail in future?
J R Smith. 44 Glamis Road, Kirriemuir.
No cut in school hours
Sir, Your correspondent Dudley Treffry is incorrect in suggesting that Fife Council’s proposal for the school week would represent a cut in school hours.
Having been a teacher in Lothian Region when the “asymmetric week” was introduced around 20 years ago, I would point out that the loss of time on Friday afternoons was exactly compensated by an earlier start and a later finish on the other days in the week.
Since the school year is prescribed by the Scottish Government, I would be certain that similar arrangements would be made in the case of Fife.
I would add that the asymmetric week was popular with pupils, teachers and even many parents who found the slightly longer day helped with their childcare arrangements and the Friday afternoons gave opportunities to programme activities with their children and assisted with holiday travel.
Concentration levels improved, even on Friday mornings!
Robert Cairns. Harrietfield, Perthshire.
Mandate must be clearly won
Sir, I was pleased to read A A Bullions’ recent letter about how the referendum vote will be interpreted as his views are similar to mine. I have asked some SNP “friends” the same question and while some do not simply know, others say it will be decided on the result of those who voted on the day.
Does this mean that we will go down the same road as the EIS union when they asked their members to vote for or against strike action? Only 36% of their eligible members voted and of this total 60% voted in favour ie 21% of the members. The result was described by the union bosses as “ an overwhelming majority for strike action”.
For a “yes” for independence, then, there has to be at least 55% or even 60% of the Scottish electorate to vote in favour otherwise it is void.
Of course, should that happen then the responsibility will not be borne by Mr Salmond but it will be laid squarely on the shoulders of his deputy Nicola Sturgeon who was given the poisoned chalice mandate to secure independence for Scotland.
Perhaps Mr Salmond should make his biggest U-turn yet by ditching the referendum and going for his alternative Devo Max when his bargaining powers will perhaps be stronger now than in the future. This would also save the country millions of pounds which could be put to better use, such as re-surfacing Scotland’s roads.
John M Page. 8 Panter Crescent, Montrose.
Time to hit them where it hurts
Sir, I think it would be quite simple to deter travelling people from leaving a mess behind and costing taxpayers money to have it cleaned up.
I believe any caravan parked illegally for more than one hour should be removed by the police and immediately crushed.
There would be no need to charge any travelling person with any criminal offence (for illegal parking) as the destruction of their caravan would be punishment enough.
Once one or two very expensive caravans were taken away and crushed they would soon get the message (ie park in designated sites, or else . . .).
Kenneth Brannan. 42 Greenlee Drive, Dundee.
A different law for travellers?
Sir, On Friday, April 26, I made an eight-mile round trip by car to deposit four, large, heavy sacks of garden rubbish at the Riverside recycling depot.
I was not overly pleased to see in Saturday’s Courier that, as a Dundee ratepayer I was having to contribute to the clearing up of the travellers’ mess left, yet again, this time at the Dundee Technology Park. Instead of dumping my four sacks of garden refuse responsibly, had I been caught fly-tipping I am sure I would have found myself in serious trouble.
Is there one law for residents and another for travellers?
Margaret Fraser. 9 Johnston Avenue, Dundee.
Privileges have been earned
Sir, Re your leader, Pensioners have earned privileges, April 29, social theorist Richard Titmuss rightly argued that the point of universal benefits is that they remove the stigma from perceived “handouts” that are actually insured entitlements.
And as Frank Field has also pointed out, not only is means-testing incredibly expensive, it encourages dishonesty and penalises those who save.
Dr John Cameron. 10 Howard Place, St Andrews.