IT’s just another example of how Westminster and the political, ruling elite regard us here in Scotland. Not a country, not a nation, never an equal partner in the spurious union, and now, even less than a region. It’s the proposed boundary changes that are really exercising me at the moment!
The “less than a region” refers to the fact that if, or rather when, these changes are enacted, Scotland the nation – with a population in excess of five million and rising – will be reduced to 53 MPs whilst a single region in England, the south-east, will have 81 MPs. This means to my simple, non-mathematical brain that even if all 53 Scottish MPs were to vote against an Act with contents that they believe to be detrimental to us, then 81 MPs from a region outwith Scotland could impose the Act upon us.
It also puts an end to the myth that Labour have touted forever, that we sway the vote here: we get Labour in and keep the Tories out.
I do believe that no matter the turmoil in Westminster, the Tory party will make every effort to push this through. After all, it is to their benefit and if there is any possibility that the Tories could gain a majority sufficient to govern without the likes of the DUP and the need for a bung, they will pursue that path.
Tommy Sheppard MP is correct when he points out this will “diminish Scotland’s voice” in Westminster (‘Ludicrous’ boundaries proposals reduce Scotland’s voice in the UK, September 11). Not least that the Brexit shambles is impacting negatively on everyday governing. But at the very moment when the rUK government should be held to account, inspection and accountability, this is a diversionary tactic that when enacted will lead to less democratic scrutiny and the greater ability of the few to govern the many who do not elect them.
Some of those who support the British establishment may regard the first-past-the-post electoral system, and such boundary changes, as democracy in action and fall back on words like “United” Kingdom and one Great Britain. I don’t regard this as democracy in action and neither do I recognise those outdated namings. I just hope that Scotland doesn’t either. So, irrespective of party politics, let’s ask: which country, which nation (and no, they will not be allowed to deny us those definitions) votes to dismantle and reduce its representation within the legislative arena? I can’t think of any, and please, it’s too early for “turkeys voting for Christmas”.
There is no denying the chatter on social media regarding this, and I was struck by a comment from Moira Cochrane of Edinburgh WFI, “no taxation without representation” – an interesting thought possibly along the same lines as not paying that fee to the BBC. But whatever way we do demonstrate and remonstrate against the boundary changes, it’s obvious what we should be voting for and that is regaining our independence, and the sooner the better.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
READ MORE: ‘Ludicrous’ boundaries proposals reduce Scotland’s voice in UK
IT’S not often I disagree with any SNP politician – I trust them all a million times more than any Unionist Westminster politician – but Tommy Sheppard’s view that the proposed Tory boundary changes would “diminish Scotland’s voice at Westminster” is simply not true. Scotland has no voice at Westminster.
That’s not to deny Tommy or any of his excellent, hard-working colleagues their due respect for all that they do in what is, to all intents and purposes, the English Parliament with a UK label slapped on it. My criticism is simply of a Westminster system that gives Scotland no voice because our representatives are massively outnumbered already, so losing a few more Scottish Westminster constituencies will make absolutely no difference as Scotland is already ignored anyway.
Whenever Scottish MPs (and I don’t include Mundell in that description) try their best to stand up for Scotland and be heard, they are usually jeered at and disrespected by Tory MPs. The Westminster old boy’s club is designed to look after only England’s interests, or should I clarify further, the English establishment’s interests.
The ONLY?way Scotland’s voice will ever be heard is when Scotland becomes an independent sovereign state, making decisions in the interests of Scotland’s people and, I believe, promoting inherently good values in the world rather than the oft-mentioned “British values” which includes, for example, supplying weapons to dodgy regimes who use them to target school buses full of children.
Peter Jeal
Dalbeattie
YOUR article on the proposed boundary changes in the UK and particularly the ridiculous proposals for Scotland have me asking the question – why are we planning on cutting the number of elected MPs at Westminster from 650 to 600 when the unelected House of Lords is sitting at almost 800 and growing? The UK Government needs to look at the lack of democracy in the upper house to make their savings, starting with elections for a dramatically reduced upper house.
Christine Smith
Troon
WHAT an excellent article by George Kerevan (A decade on, we need to bust the myths of the financial crash, September 10) which gives a clear and insightful description of what went wrong in 2008. This should be mandatory reading for all involved, or interested in the UK financial world, or a future Scottish one.
In particular those discussing the financial aspects of the Growth Report, which, according to George, “recommends adopting wholesale the current, weak UK banking regulations – the very ones the SNP Parliamentary group fought against tooth and nail.”
This must add strength to the desire/need for a totally new approach to Scotland’s financial strategy after independence; and it should be shouted from the rooftops well before a future referendum.
James Macintyre
Lesmahagow
READ MORE: 10 years on from the global financial crash, we need to bust its myths
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