LABOUR’S “dirty deal” with the Tories in North Lanarkshire truly is a shocker (Labour’s ‘dirty deal’ for council, The National, May 23). It became public on May 18, when, after a 41-33 vote, the eight Tories present voted in the Labour Provost, Labour council leader and all other key posts, including — at her first-ever council meeting — the Tory convener of the Audit Committee.
The SNP group, as the largest party, had written to the Labour group leader offering talks on an SNP-Labour administration. The letter was not even acknowledged by Labour, who clearly preferred to ally with the Tories.
One day later, the new Labour-Tory North Lanarkshire Council made its first major announcement. It disclosed its plans to the Unite union to axe 198 classroom assistant posts. In the area where Keir Hardie was born, we now see a Labour-Tory alliance slashing public sector jobs in education.
Councillor Tom Johnston (SNP)
North Lanarkshire Council
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s impossible to not change after such an atrocity
IT is both natural and right that we are angered, hurt, worried but resolute post the Manchester atrocity. We will not be bowed or divided by the actions of the bomber and those who think of and support such vile acts of horror. But in that rush of human emotions we must acknowledge that we change, intentionally or not. How we respond as individuals is one thing, but how the state responds is another. To my way of thinking there are two aspects to consider, namely external and internal policies.
Surely we have to ask: is our external foreign policy working in the Middle East? We can see our direct interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya which are clearly three failed states. Actions in Syria appear to be based on “our enemy’s enemy is my friend” so we have engaged with anti-Assad “freedom fighters”. But one person’s freedom fighter is inevitably somebody else’s rebel. And all four countries have seen massive internal displacement and the exodus of people: all then labelled not victims, not survivors, but refugees and asylum seekers.
There is currently a civil war in Yemen, exacerbating the poverty and destitution to famine level. Saudi Arabia is leading a multinational coalition, supporting the government against the rebels. This just happens to be Sunni supporting Sunni versus Shi’a . Enter again the bogeyman that is Iran: consistently vilified for supporting “others”, “the rebels”, in the region, and that nuclear programme Iran has pursued. But in the failed state that is the Yemen, it is recognised that the majority of deaths have taken place due to the air strikes from a Saudi-led multinational coalition. And our role? Selling arms and munitions and training personnel to the Saudis. Far from asking: is all of this part of an ethical foreign policy; is the UK’s foreign policy working?
Then, internally, we have the Prevent Strategy, that has been condemned as failing, time and time again. It is in the main misunderstood, and in late 2016 the Open Society Justice Initiative came out with a detailed study confirming anecdotal knowledge, including cancellation of university conferences on homophobia: primary school kids’ conversations and information about Muslim pupils being gathered and passed on. Even simply being observed as “becoming more religious” (meaning Muslim) has resulted in referral to the police. So much for freedom of speech that we are determined to defend. RightsWatchUK concluded (July 2016) that Prevent stifles free speech. And what of the communities’ trust levels? Increased? Decreased? How involved and supportive are they? And who has been “prevented from being radicalised”? Who is being profiled and targeted? What evidence is there that this policy is working?
The UK Government has told us that the answer to the threat level being raised to critical, is to put the army on the streets. This will enable the police to do their job “more fully”, especially in public areas. So how effective has Theresa May’s policy been, starting in 2010 as Home Secretary, whereby she cut around 20,000 frontline police?
No, enough! Army on the streets and consideration of curtailing campaigning until the weekend is not the sign of a strong, stable democratic government serving the country. Who knows, the next step might be to cancel the election!
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
IN all the reporting of the despicable, cowardly attack on children and young people in Manchester, I cannot help seeing a neglected perspective. All the extended media coverage, with ever more victims and other attendees at the event being put through harrowing interviews and details of the atrocity regurgitated, the media is giving the terrorist and his accomplices exactly what they want — maximum publicity.
Add the haste with which the name of the perpetrator was published, I believe against the wishes of the police and security services, and the media are also hindering the efforts to discover and bring to justice all co-conspirators, who must have been alerted to the need to disappear as fast as possible. How many may have passed safely and quickly through airports the moment the bomber’s name was known? This can only hinder the work to trace the entire network within which the plans were laid and thus to safeguard us all by preventing some further atrocity. But unfortunately, the story is paramount for the media and the greater the detail, the better.
Is it not possible to report the bare bones of such events, certainly using the media to help identify victims and find the missing if necessary, but concentrate the majority of the reporting on the magnificent response of the emergency services and those who ran into danger to help, and the creation of solidarity in the community where the intention was to destroy just that?
Moreover, in their efforts to combat this distortion of their religion, should the Muslim community make more of the Prophet’s command to “do no harm to any man or any community”?
Name and address supplied
MUCH soul searching and scapegoating is sure to take place over the coming weeks following the horrific events in Manchester.
However, how long until our politicians start to capitalise on this tragedy to serve their political interests? No doubt the Tories will use their future increased majority to push through new draconian laws.
William McBride
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel