ON Monday I heard Richard Tice of Reform UK pontificate on the Daily Politics show by repeating the mantra that those crossing the Channel in small boats should all be returned to France, as it is a safe country. I am rapidly reaching the limits of frustration and anger with this argument that they should stay in the first safe country the come to, before I resort to throwing something at the TV!
READ MORE: Activists in Glasgow protest potential deportation of refugees
When will an interviewer ask how anyone can reach the UK as the first safe country they come to? It is virtually impossible for anyone from eg Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and other dangerous countries to reach the UK without passing through another safe country first. This would mean that the UK would take in no refugees at all, leaving the rest of Europe to take them all. Probably this would delight the likes of Tice, or does he expect them to use a small boat to sail the Med and Bay of Biscay etc to reach the UK first?
Interviewers should also point out a few facts. Many of those risking that dangerous crossing already have relatives here. Many have English as their only additional language, as a result of their populations being forced to learn and use it under Empire rule. There is no legal route from many of these war-torn countries. Even if there were, the facilities to provide the documentation required before leaving their home country have been destroyed by the very events that are forcing them to flee.
Have those who spout this mantra no empathy at all for the suffering of those who risk their and their families’ lives to escape war, persecution and torture? Where is their basic humanity?
P Davidson
Falkirk
IT’S been reported that the collapse of the privatised and heavily indebted Thames Water could trigger a government borrowing crisis. Nonsense. The £15 billion debt is a drop in the bucket, and since the shares are valueless, the UK Government won’t pony up the whole amount anyway. Also recall that Sunak blithely announced the defence budget will jump from £55bn per annum to £87bn by 2030. That tells you the UK values bombs over clean water.
It’s doubtful the UK Government will learn the key lesson from this debacle that water, an essential public good, should have never been privatised in the first place. But don’t expect common sense from English Labour. Its solution is to ban bonuses for water bosses, not to bring England’s filthy and costly water back into public ownership.
WATCH: This GMB clip could be the worst Scottish politics analysis ever on TV
So how did Scotland dodge this particular privatisation bullet? It did it via a popular referendum, a basic political right under a system of direct democracy.
When the Tory government proposed privatising Scotland’s water in 1994, which 90% of Scots opposed, Strathclyde Regional Council organised a postal referendum asking them if they agreed with the UK Government’s proposal. 71.5% of all voters – 1.2 million people – took part. 97.2% voted No in the UK’s largest ever council referendum. Westminster backed down and Scotland’s water remained in public hands.
The Strathclyde water referendum showed that if people are given a voice, their will can prevail and serve as a check on government power. Scotland’s constitution, embodied in the 1689 Claim of Right, says the people are sovereign and Westminster has agreed. So, the way out of this failing Union is for the Scottish people to convene a constitutional convention to draft a constitution based on direct democracy, putting themselves back in charge of their nation.
Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh
IF we thought the last 14 years were interesting times, be prepared for even more. Whatever the outcome of the Labour no-confidence motion, the political conditions in Scotland are about to change.
My political preference in the changed conditions that will arise is that there will be a Holyrood election this year (before the Westminster election). The following are some of the reasons why.
READ MORE: SNP leadership polling finds SNP voters back John Swinney
As we all know, a Holyrood election is of a different character from a Westminster one, as is its voting system. Also, different issues will be addressed that pertain only to Scotland. The other important factors are: 1) The youth who are eligible to vote. The polls tell us there is majority support among them for independence. 2) According to the polls 50% will vote for self-determination. 3) The degree of political understanding and knowledge among those who vote.
If an election for Holyrood were to happen, I doubt if the Unionist parties and Alba would relish it, particularly in a Westminster election year when the Labour, LibDems and Tories have their main focus on winning seats there.
It could be argued that voters who may be considering voting for Labour in a General Election even though they support independence would vote SNP and Greens despite the difficulties being experienced by the former or any dislike of the latter.
If a Holyrood election were to take place during this year, the barrage of lies, distortion, negativity and insult the SNP would be subject to would be intense. But then again, what’s new!
Bobby Brennan
Glasgow
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