ONCE again we have to endure another price increase. Once again we look to Ofsted, who once again fail us.
I would like to run this idea I have by your readers and would be interested in their replies...
Firstly, The Government picks a month in the year, let’s say March. During those four weeks all energy companies must submit their prices for the next 12 months. The consumers would then be able to look at them and change companies if they so wish, if they are cheaper over that period.
The following March if companies wish to reduce or increase their charges, then the system starts again for another year, and so on.
This would deal with apathy among the consumers who say, as they do with banks, ‘What’s the use in changing, they only increase their prices?’ This would bring transparency and true competition and would make it easier to scrutinise and clear up the reputation which energy companies have that they collude with each other.
C Douglas, Houston
THE First Minister is currently being put under pressure by the Unionist press and politicians to now set a date for Indyref2, or drop the policy altogether and “get on with the day job”.
The tactics are obvious. If she cracks and calls a referendum too early before the Scottish electorate are convinced about the benefits of independence, she loses, and the SNP will have no mandate to call another referendum for a generation. It is therefore vital the First Minister and everyone else in the independence movement hold their nerve until the timing is right.
The circumstances for a successful indyref2 are slowly coming together and the perfect storm that is coming against Westminster’s control over Scotland is building day by day. So what are these circumstances?
Firstly, another Conservative government that Scotland didn’t vote for is in control of Westminster. Secondly, Ukip is gaining strength in England in what used to be Labour heartlands and Labour is terrified of losing support to Ukip in marginal constituencies, allowing the Tories to sweep up more seats in the 2020 election for a third Tory government the Scots didn’t vote for. Thirdly, the EU referendum which saw Scotland voting with a majority to remain in the EU is being disregarded by May’s government, by sweeping aside any aspect of the proposals being put forward to give us some kind of access to the single market, and mitigate the negative impact of leaving the EU on growth and jobs.
Fourthly, as the Brexit car crash starts to take its toll on the UK economy, and the Conservative government becomes ever more desperate to sign trade deals with Trump’s protectionist America, or seeks sweetheart deals for the City at the expense of the Scottish fishing industry, people will begin to see we are expendable in the face of the interests of the Conservative Party and the Brexiteers.
Finally, if May’s government holds back on permission to hold indyref2 through a Section 30 order as being suggested by Tory minister Michael Fallon, that could well be the incentive Scots need to demand indyref2.
So I would urge the First Minister to hold her nerve until the spring of 2019 at the earliest when the effects of Brexit will start to hit home. As a successful, small, independent country with fantastic resources at hand Scotland will be welcomed into the EEA or the EU.
Keep your nerve, Nicola, it’s all moving our way.
Kenny McGhie, Clarkston
WITH news that scrapped oil platforms are going to be partially abandoned in the North Sea the chickens are coming home to roost. When oil was first discovered in Scottish waters Harold Wilson ordered the North Sea be pounded before Scotland became independent.
Norway demanded that the debris not only be cleared but refurbished the way they wanted, by demanding marinas, for instance, to be built. Bridges and tunnels were built to their islands and Oslo has its underground roads all built on the proceeds of the oil. Workers in the Gulf of Mexico secured better conditions, pensions and safety conditions. The GB trade unions, as usual, complied with reactionary Labour governments by policing Labour pay freezes, who secured their political levies to Labour.
Scotland has no oil fund nor control of its fishing in what should be sovereign Scottish waters, thanks to British negotiations.
Donald Anderson, Glasgow
THE Tories like to say they were on the side of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU but what about the 50 million or so that didn’t? And I get fed up with how they always say “taking back control” yet we now have to redo trade deals, lose our human rights so the Tories will want the mentally ill and disabled to do work for about £73 a week and there will be no right of appeal.
The rich in middle England will benefit from Brexit while all councils will be starved of money and people will need to pay for NHS treatment.
I hope the No voters will wake up to the threat to their jobs post-Brexit, with soaring inflation, even more public services cuts and no more welfare state.
Stephen Kelly, Motherwell
ON Wednesday, at PMQs Westminster, I heard PM Theresa May accuse Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn of using alternative facts. So not content with mere hand-holding, she is now mouthing phrases associated with US President Trump.
Why, then, am I NOT surprised then that her Government is sneaking out unpalatable information hidden behind a combination of the smoke and mirrors including PMQs, the overall Brexit dilemma, the stooshie raised by the Speaker, and the overall, on-going furore around Trump?
That this rUK government should halt the [refugee] scheme, or the Dub Amendment, at around 350 children is an outrage. Obviously, she has learnt from her predecessors on both sides of the House: good day to bury bad news being one; economical with the truth being another, and equally from the current tactics in the White House.
So thank goodness for the Bridges Programme and the wisdom of the Scottish Government to back a scheme that brings benefit to the individuals, their new communities and their new country as noted in your article, Initiative will help the refugee medics retrain and work as NHS doctors (The National, February 9).
Selma Rahman Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here