RUTH Davidson’s absence in the wake of the reinstatement of the two Tory councillors who had been suspended over sexist and sectarian abuse is nothing short of startling (Davidson under fire for interview no-show, The National, August 23), particularly for someone who has shown great eagerness to pounce upon the faults of others, mainly the SNP or the Scottish Government.
Firstly, these two should have been banned from her party, not merely suspended. To say they have apologised wholeheartedly for their actions and any offence and distress they have caused isn’t enough.
In re-admitting them to her party, Davidson is in effect declaring that Scottish Conservatives are comfortable with with having those who express such views within their ranks.
No wonder she is running scared of the interviewers as she has some pretty ugly and awkward questions to answer, and she would have to do better than Murdo Fraser’s attempt at justifying the unjustifiable!
So come on colonel, take off your camouflage come out into the open and let’s hear your justification for this situation.
Ade Hegney
Helensburgh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This key blueprint can help us to win indyref2
BEFORE building a house, plans must be drawn up and submitted to the planning authorities. Before building a self-governing Scottish state, a blueprint requires to be submitted for approval to the authorising power — the people.
A small team of Scots at the Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies in Glasgow is currently reviewing a draft constitution for Scotland. In response to the political awakening in Scotland and the many changes that are and have been occurring recently, the draft constitution written to meet aspirations prior to 2013 is being redrafted as a Guide for a Provisional Constitution for Sovereign Scotland. We welcome contributions from any interested persons who would wish to submit their opinions.
A blueprint in the form of a provisional constitution would spell out fundamental law and human rights and also set out the basic democratic foundations upon which to build government policies.
As the subject of the widest possible consultation, a provisional constitution, by providing a more comprehensive picture of independence, could remove much of the doubt from undecided folk.
Up to the 2014 referendum, when asking for details of future policies the answer was generally “wait until we are independent”. The result of that tactic was a clear No vote.
The people of Scotland are mainly pragmatic and realistic folk, therefore, before the next referendum, the independence movement and supporting political parties need to provide coherent provisional government policies, not just for currency, social security and pensions, but for all functions of government, as founded upon a provisional constitution.
Additionally, core questions must be clearly answered about matters such as pensions; who will control the Scottish electricity grids; who will issue licenses for the seabed within Scotland’s exclusive economic zone? What are the fishing and agricultural policies? What is the provisional defence policy?
This time around the People must be involved with drafting the plans for the self-governing state of Scotland, as this is too important to be left solely to politicians. For further information see www.scottishconstitution.scot
Robert Ingram
Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies, Glasgow
THE Barclay Review’s greatest contribution to the debate on non-domestic rates is its opinion that the current system is a mess (Report backs major shake-up for rates, The National, August 23). No-one should be surprised, given the UK’s tradition of putting in place highly complex layers of taxation at every level.
The costs of administering, collecting and dealing with avoidance of tax make it a multi-billion pound industry in itself, but one which does not contribute in any positive way to our economy.
Despite the good intentions of the review members I fear that what they propose will just perpetuate this state. Speaking as a nationalist, one glaring mistake in Barclay’s brief was to ensure that Scotland’s non-domestic rates regime had a competitive edge against other parts of the UK. Concerning ourselves with competing with mediocrity does nothing for our standing as an international beacon of radical public funding reform and enterprise. This is all the more frustrating when there is an obvious solution. All UK, Scottish and local government taxes, including rates could be replaced with the introduction of Annual Ground Rent (AGR), charged on a square metre basis on all land and floorspace at rates commensurate with the land/space type involved.
Payment can’t be avoided as you can’t take land offshore, and the Revenue Scotland site would be public so every owner would make an honest self-assessed return for fear of substantial penalties for under-reporting. With this system, sufficient extra public funds could be raised to provide for a citizen’s income for everyone while making Scotland the best place in the world to start and develop a business.
As the latest round of GERS figures arrive and nationalists and Unionists argue along parallel lines which never cross, AGR offers Scotland a system of public funding based on the stewardship of our land and property over which we as a nation have complete control and not at the mercy of the vagaries of the global economy or, even worse, the criminal and institutional incompetence of the British state
Graeme McCormick
Arden, by Loch Lomond
I TOOK great exception to Cat Boyd’s article about Scotland’s involvement in the slave trade. For years, my mother was little more than a slave, working long hours for little pay from when she was 14 years old. She had no power to change anything. My mother was born into abject poverty in 1915, my father in 1923. Any gains Scotland had made from the slave trade did not trickle down to them. Do we not all know now that wealth does not trickle down to the poor?
Finally, I am not responsible for the misbehaviour of any member of my family today or in the future so why would I be held responsible for what a family member had done in the past?
Mary Baxter
Address supplied
SO, Pamela Nash sees the need for a campaign to “remind people why we are better off in the UK” (Scotland in Union appoints a new boss, The National, August 22). Surely if people need to be reminded of this they are clearly not feeling better off in as a result of being in the Union
William Crossan
Campbeltown
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