I UNDERSTAND Green Party co-leader Patrick Harvie is going to vote against the forthcoming Scottish budget if the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Kate Forbes, is involved in decisions about policy. I sincerely hope the SNP government will not agree to this kind of blackmail.
How Mr Harvie plans to actually judge if Ms Forbes has had any involvement is a mystery. He also warned the SNP against putting forward cash to upgrade the A9 and A96 due to the alleged impact on the climate. He said that they shouldn’t go “all Fergus Ewing on us”.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens reveal ‘minimum needed' to support SNP Budget
Mr Harvie labelled Ms Forbes as “extreme” and also hit out at John Swinney for axing the conversion therapy ban, a policy apparently much closer to Mr Harvie’s cold heart than the health of the Scottish economy but one far very down the priority list of 99.9% of the Scottish electorate.
I seem to remember that the appointment of Ms Forbes as Cabinet Secretary for the Economy led to an equally lengthy rant from Green MSP Ross Greer about her political, financial and personal beliefs. A quick look at Mr Greer’s online CV tells me he left school in July of 2012, and began a course of study at the University of Strathclyde in September 2012 in psychology and politics, but left without graduating some three months later in December 2012, to work for Yes Scotland as their youth and student co-ordinator. After the referendum, he was employed by the Scottish Greens. He stood as the Scottish Green candidate in the East Dunbartonshire constituency in the 2015 General Election, securing only fifth place with only 804 votes (1.5%). As far as I can determine, he has no credible financial qualifications, professional or otherwise, which would lead me, or undecided voters, to accept any financial advice from him.
Uninformed comments from completely unqualified so-called Green politicians who have lived their “working” lives in a political bubble will guarantee us the loss of yet another referendum – if we ever have one.
If the SNP budget fails to pass there is the possibly of an early Scottish Parliament election. If this is the case, so be it.
Brian Lawson
Paisley
I WAS pleased to see the interesting report ahead of the Scottish Greens conference this weekend, and welcome a chance for members to vote on our plans for a deal with the Scottish Government.
After their treatment of the Greens last year, the SNP have shown they are more than happy to kick us out of government without respecting our democratic process, do away with Green priorities at the first sign of trouble, and pander to their own right wing in the name of “fiscal responsibility”.
READ MORE: Greens will 'push SNP to end funding for firms arming Israel' in Budget negotiations
It cannot be responsible to cut local authorities to the bone, hollowing out communities and decimating public services. That has been the result of previous SNP budgets, and we are now long past the point when there was any fat to trim. Enough is enough.
Beyond the fact that the SNP cannot be trusted to follow up on any budget promises, as Greens we must now recognise our value to government ministers and demand the best possible price for our support in this budget.
Local councils have, time and again, been first on the chopping block of government cuts. This year, for once, they should be first priority for saving.
That is why I will be voting to support the motion brought by Ellie Gomersall and Anthony Carroll – for the future of local government, and for the future of our party.
Niall Christie
Scottish Green Party member and 2024 General Election candidate
RICHARD Murphy’s excellent takedown of Rachel Reeves in Friday’s edition got me thinking about my own reaction to the professional liars who infest our political life.
Unlike Richard, “profound annoyance” doesn’t come close to the hatred that lying, powerful people instil in me.
When you consider the good they might do, and are in a position to do, it is heartbreaking to see them in thrall to corruption, greed and sick ideologies ... supporting ethnic cleansing comes to mind.
READ MORE: Standing up for truth, honesty and justice matters now more than ever
Not all are so far gone in self-abasement, of course – there may be a handful of decent MPs out there ... it’s just that they’re lost in the sick, cynical gangsterism that defines Westminster.
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, it’s more important than ever that voters actually turn up and tick a box, because one of the main reasons that politicians get away with it is the knowledge that so few people take an interest.
When the public en masse ever wake up?
Jim Butchart
via email
AS a retired person with some personal savings to supplement my pension, I have wondered for some time about the way Starmer and co keep telling us they are totally committed to doing what they do for “working people”. Clearly, I am not a working person, nor are children, students, the seriously ill or disabled. Do we not count in Labour’s plans?
READ MORE: Expect more bad vibes from Labour with Rachel Reeves's Budget
Now Starmer has defined the term. Anyone who owns shares or owns rented property is NOT a working person. Is he aware that some workers are partly paid in shares because this gives them a stake in what they are working for and so is an incentive? A lot of people are in private pension schemes, either voluntarily or because they were obliged to join one. Indirectly, they will own shares.
Many jobs require training schemes before one is employed and then ongoing development training. Is it time that all politicians, when they enter parliament, should be required to learn how the economy of a currency-issuing country actually works?
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
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