READING Charlie Kerr’s Long Letter on Thursday, in which he explains why he has joined Alba to give the SNP a wake-up call, somehow made me think of competition in the bus industry.
The political setup in Scotland fits well into this scenario. The SNP is a locally owned company that serves the local community very well, uses other local companies whenever possible, employs local people and reinvests most of its modest profits back into improving its services.
There it faces a problem, as all changes have to comply with complex regulations set by a body that does not favour local competition; consequently changes and improvements often take an inordinate amount of time before they reach its passengers.
READ MORE: I’m no fifth columnist, I joined Alba because I’m fed up with delays
A few long-term passengers have become annoyed at this and in protest have moved to Alba – a new start-up company that claims that its primary aim is to speed up the SNP’s delivery of services.
It is not clear how this will be achieved through competition with the SNP on the same routes using a second-hand fleet, often very obviously staffed by disgruntled former SNP employees.
The Greens are a much smaller local company that concentrates on providing eco-friendly services, mainly complementing those of the SNP. Between the two they carry the majority of passengers.
Three other competitors are like peas in a pod, all owned, operated and funded by multinational companies that share a primary objective of driving out the two locally owned companies in order to extract the maximum return for their owners investments.
Their remote management and lack of interest in providing a service that matches local needs has resulted in a major decline in passenger numbers that would have put them out of business long ago, had there not been head office funding and D’Hondt regulations that apply only to competition in local areas.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond to highlight Scotland's energy resources at Alba campaign launch
Alba has no appeal whatsoever to passengers of the three main competitors and its success is measured mainly by the number of passengers transferring from the two local companies.
The local elections in a couple of weeks can be seen as an open day for transfers on which passengers can buy a non-refundable season ticket with any bus company for the next four years.
The bus companies then rearrange their routes and timetables overnight according to demand, so passengers do not know if their preferred bus is still running until they are standing in the queue at the bus stop next morning.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
SUPPORTERS of independence will assuredly welcome Charlie Kerr’s very sensible rejoinder to those few of your readers who are seeking to paint members of the Alba party as defectors or fifth columnists. It is time to lay that baseless accusation firmly to rest. Pete Wishart’s unpleasant rant last week disturbed me, as he seemed to be suggesting not only that Alba members were seeking to wreck the independence movement, but that he had some right to direct the choices of independence voters according to a purely SNP agenda.
Freedom-loving Scots long to be rid of Westminster rule, but I doubt that they wish to replace it with the sort of centralising and controlling techniques so often associated, regrettably, with the SNP and with the Scottish Government.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond talks independence, gender reform, and Alba's election hopes
The SNP is certainly dominant for the present, but voters should be aware that in Alba there is an alternative open to them – an open, inclusive and good-natured party with clear thinking, excellent policies, and dynamic and experienced leaders.
Are we really to believe that there is room for only one party which has Scottish independence as its core aim? And must open-mindedness and freedom of choice continue to be represented as a betrayal? It seems to me that Pete Wishart’s comments take us to the brink of civil war within the movement. That would be a tragedy; and a tragedy this time only of our own making.
E Hamilton
Glasgow
THE senior Labour member who said of Billy Kay’s speech in Scots at Holyrood, “Literally nobody in Scotland speaks like this”, reminded me of Sydney Goodsir Smith’s riposte to this very same remark (Kay claps back at Unionists after Scots address, Apr 28). His Epistle to John Guthrie defends the use of Scots with the words, “There’s no-one speaks like that’, they fleer,/ – But wha the deil spoke like King Lear?”
Why is it, l ask myself, that the English have no problem with the teaching of Chaucer in schools (another language no-one speaks) while we Scots, tim’rous beasties that we are, seem to balk at the teaching of the likes of John Barbour, Robert Henryson and William Dunbar? Perhaps it is because our education authorities share the ignorant prejudices of the Labour member. If so, the wrong people are in control.
As a resident of Edinburgh, I take it ill that the poetry of Robert Fergusson does not seem to have been taken up by its schools. Why would their pupils not enjoy a poem like Auld Reekie, with rhymes like, “Now morn, wi bonny purpie-smiles/Kisses the aircock o St Giles.”
The Labour member would, of course, be wrong to say that nobody speaks like Fergusson wrote. I’m tempted, in passing, to wonder what his own everyday speech is like; no doubt a type of robotic bureaucratese, devoid of any idiomatic life.
Alastair McLeish
Edinburgh
SAD that oor country is still rife wi linguistic racism, or classism gin ye prefer, tho I prefer the simpler word snobbery. Jist plain ignorance fae barkin mad folk that hate their ain country an its languages, Scots an Gaelic.
John Hodgart
via thenational.scot
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