DEAR George Foulkes,
Some 30-odd years ago I was asked to make a poster for the students union at Ayr College, and you were to be their guest speaker. Having seen you on television on numerous occasions, I decided to go along and listen to you speak and maybe ask you a question. After all, you always came over as a blithering idiot on TV and I thought that nobody could be that stupid. How wrong I was, and the intervening years have done nothing to change my opinion of you, or that hour you spent talking to the students.
During the 1970s and 1980s nobody ever thought that the Labour party in Scotland would struggle to get votes – after all, they did hold the majority of Scottish seats. They also had some fine MPs who rose to high office, unlike you who only managed a junior role. Since then, of course, the Labour party in Scotland is no longer the party of choice. In fact it now languishes in third place behind the Tories, and people like you put them there because you still come over as some kind of blithering idiot!
READ MORE: Scottish independence planning should be BANNED by UK Government, Lord Foulkes says
George, you claim it is illegal for the SNP to spend “UK taxpayers’ money” to plan for a second independence referendum. I do hope you realise that without Scottish funding, the UK Treasury would have been bankrupt years ago and wouldn’t be able to give you your £315 daily allowance for attending the House of Lords (plus expenses). Also, if it is illegal for Scotland to spend money on a second referendum, then it must also be illegal for the UK Government to do so. So please. George, tell me why the UK Government is spending our money preparing for an independence referendum – and it’s been an open secret now for some three years – and now want to fight the Scottish Government through the Supreme Court.
George, people like you get shoved up into the House of Lords so that people like me can forget all about you, so please be quiet and stop reminding us that you are a blithering idiot.
Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock
I READ Hamish Morrison’s article in The National on Wednesday on George Foulkes. That man – you wonder how much more anti-Scotland he can get: “to stop this illegality and start using the money they get from British taxpayers” and “UK taxpayers’ money.”
Apparently Scotland doesn’t pay any tax! I understood all our tax heads down south and we get a percentage back?
Norman Robertson
via email
AS with the content of his “resignation” statement outside Number 10, Johnson’s description in the Commons on Wednesday of his record in office bears no comparison to the real world. It invites the question, what recourse is there when a leader’s utter disregard for truth journeys through delusion to such a warped view of events that it smacks of insanity?
READ MORE: Boris Johnson mocked for Westminster statement hailing his own achievements
In the UK, the answer is none, as long as the party stooges applaud that leader and the media act as cheerleaders and conspirators in the lies. We in Scotland need to recognise that we have a route to escape such madness.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
AS the Tory equivalent of The Weakest Link rumbles on, leaving just two in the running, it throws up obvious concerns as to how the next leader of the Conservative party and thereby Prime Minister of the UK is elected.
A narrow electorate of less than 200,000, largely male, older, white and based in the south of England, will now select the next UK Prime Minister. Hardly representative of society or indeed even of the average Tory voter.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak’s ignorance of Scottish geography comes as no surprise
Interestingly, this could see an interesting constitutional situation whereby the runner-up amongst MPs becomes Conservative leader and thereby PM due to the votes of a tiny electorate. We would thereby have an individual who had risen to the heady heights without even having the support of the majority of Tory MPs.
In the absence of a General Election, to fail to secure the majority support of MPs from your own party as you enter Number 10 is a deeply challenging situation to be in from the off.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
THE Tory government has been looking at ways of ensuring that there is no “electoral fraud” at General Elections eg voter ID. The BBC, however, were unable get a figure from the Tory party regarding how many members they actually have – the totals varying by 25,000 members. These members will be the ones who choose the next Prime Minister, yet their party administration is not sure who they all are. Another glass of irony, anyone?
John McArthur
Glasgow
IN response to the question from Archie Drummond of Tillicoultry (Letters, July 21), no, I do not speak for Alba or its MPs. They seem more than capable of doing so themselves. I was simply pointing out the fact that the largest daily rise in
SNP membership since the 2014 referendum was on the day the entire SNP group walked out of the House of Commons chamber. That fact must say something for the attitude of the Scottish public.
It is almost 50 years since a group of 11 SNP MPs were elected in October 1974. Their numbers have increased over the years. I sincerely hope their successors will not still be sitting on the comfy green benches in another 50 years’ time. However we should all remember that it is not a million years since the Labour Party had around 50 Scottish MPs. What goes around comes around.
Glenda Burns
Glasgow
THE Conservative leadership race reminds me of Bob Hope, when he passed comment on a US Presidential race. To paraphrase him: “We now have the choice between the evil of two lessers.”
Colin Waddell
Larbert
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