IN Saturday’s National you detailed in your article the many benefits of the SNP-Greens Agreement, but said “there are 10 areas where they do not agree” and went on to mention “the matter of fee-paying schools and field sports” (but no others) as a “long running bone of contention between the two sides”. As a result I had to turn to another newspaper to find mention of some other points on which agreement was not reached such as membership of Nato, public funding for defence companies, decriminalising sex work etc. But nowhere was land ownership mentioned.
READ MORE: SNP NEC backs deal with Greens that ‘reinvigorates’ independence drive
No doubt the loss of Andy Wightman from the Green Party played its part in this, but it highlights the gulf between the powers that the devolved government already have and its inability to use them for fear of upsetting the landowners of the vast estates prevalent throughout Scotland. Until the SNP government grasp this nettle and makes decisive moves in that direction, they will permanently be tarred by the term “fearties”.
Might I suggest as a start that all SNP and Green MSPs have as compulsory reading Andy Wightman’s excellent book The Poor Had No Lawyers. Perhaps then something might be done in that direction.
Paul Gillon
Leven
I DIDN’T vote for the Greens so I am wary of seeing the party I did vote for handing them two seats in the Scottish Government. I am not convinced that what they bring to the table is worth as much as they might benefit from this deal.
The electoral system we were handed with devolution is badly flawed but it needs a thorough overhaul, not a wee bit of tinkering with. The SNP/Green agreement neither addresses the problem with the D’Hondt system nor brings us closer to having our independence, and with it the power to adopt a system that suits our needs rather than the interest of the London government that seeks to keep us tied to the toxic Union.
Ni Holmes
St Andrews
READ MORE: SNP struck deal with Greens to 'avoid no confidence motions every other week'
PlEASE stop referring to the NEC as “the SNP’s ruling body”. A lot of them may THINK they are, but the party constitution states: “20.1 National Conference is the supreme governing and policy-making body of the party.”
Jack Foley
Hamilton
THE fact that Douglas Ross should have received a severe backlash from other politicians and members of the public for his petulant claim that the SNP are anti- families is well merited yet frustratingly only too predictable.
The leader of the Scottish Conservatives can never be termed an intellectual giant and he struggles to hold on to even a veneer of any kind of dignity or credibility when faced with a political situation that he deems outwith his comfort zone or beyond his very limited imagination.
READ MORE: Caitlin Logan: Douglas Ross's excuse for 'anti-families' dog whistle just doesn't cut it
There can be no doubt that his “anti-families” reference was made as a sly but none-too-subtle attack on LGBT rights. Ross is consistently anxious to demonstrate his blinkered right-wing views to appeal to a hard core of Conservative supporters and to ingratiate himself with the crypto- fascist government in Westminster and the blond buffoon in chief who, when pressed, could not even remember his Scottish leader’s name.
Douglas Ross is a pedantic and uninspiring party apparatchik who is unquestioningly loyal to his masters in Westminster and totally bereft of original thinking. In most occupations these qualities would be a major disadvantage yet in the ranks of Tory politicians they are regarded as a positive boon.
A combination of reactionary views, Grade A sycophancy and intolerance have witnessed Ross constantly voting against gay rights, same-sex marriage and laws to promote equality and human rights.
His 19th century vision for Scotland is offensive and ridiculous in equal measure and must be consigned to the dustbin of history in the near future.
Owen Kelly
Stirling
SO the newly appointed LibDem leader, Alex Cole-Hamilton, professes that he is an “internationalist”? How intriguing that this particular politician can describe himself in such a high regard – a “man for all seasons”!? NOT!
This man has never been short of a temper or sheer arrogance during his five-year period as a MSP, and any politically savvy resident in west Edinburgh would advise you that this he is another one of those chancing characters who embraced the underhand way to win a Scottish constituency seat by touting a tactical voting campaign to gain votes from Tories who are spread throughout the predominantly wealthy parts of this Edinburgh constituency and who didn’t want an SNP MSP while being fully aware their traditional Tory vote would fail to bring in their preferred candidate. As undemocratic as it gets, and clearly with no interest in Scotland or the best way forward without an interfering Westminster government.
READ MORE: LibDem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton weighs in on SNP deal with Greens
One must also ask, “Is this really the type of behaviour of a true ‘internationalist’ that ACH professes to be? I don’t think so! His previous anti-democratic comments in denying the right of the Scottish people to stage an indy referendum go hand in hand with similar comments from his previous LibDem Unionist boss Willie Rennie, together with his LibDem (London head office) boss, Sir Ed Davey – all entrenched in their anti-indy Unionist philosophy and violating their own political “raison d’etre”, ie endorsing and upholding democratic values.
Perhaps Sir Ed Davey should bite the bullet and formally remove the word “democrat” from his party’s title/logo once and for all – just another step in the gradual demise of this totally unimpressive political party!!
Bernie Japs
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