I AM currently reading The Social Life Of Scotland In The Eighteenth Century by Henry Grey Graham. It encompasses the Union, the loss of the Edinburgh Parliament and the needful travel to London of a meagre allocation of members to the (English continuing) Parliament in Westminster.
Two contemporary accounts are worth quoting: “In the beginning of this month (September 1711) I hear a generall dissatisfaction our nobility that was at the last parliament have at their treatment at London. They complean that they are only made use of as tools among the English, and cast by when their party designs are over.”
And: “In great dudgeon in 1712 the Scots members met together and expressed ‘high resentment of the uncivil haughty treatment they met with from the English’.”
READ MORE: Alex Salmond's family issue update on public memorial service
More than 300 Three hundred and more years later and things are just the same. With the Scots contingent numbering 57 and the English contingent numbering 543, the Scots can be insulted and ignored with impunity. Plus ça change. To any but the profoundly dim, it’s obvious that Scotland will never make any progress towards genuinely running its own affairs while thirled to Westminster and an endless propagation of this desperate situation into the future is beyond endurance.
By our own actions and those of a Holyrood parliament with more fire in its belly, we need to engender frustration within our populace at our continued treatment within the morally bankrupt and failing entity that is the so-called United Kingdom, thus so set in motion an unstoppable drive to an independent Scottish state.
Ken Gow
Bridge of Canny, Banchory
IT is absolutely outrageous that the National Care Service Bill, a hugely important piece of legislation, has been shelved purely for political gain.
The disaster of the current care system run by councils is worse than awful yet councils wish to keep control. If they think they can do better then why are council care services so awful? Unless you have experienced it, you will not understand how bad it actually is. Allowing them to keep control of the service is like placing the fox in the henhouse.
Councils talk a good game about keeping care local but as users can attest they have done a worse than terrible job managing the control of the care service with little or no accountability. What we need is a more professional organisation with oversight and control.
The reality of current care amounts to abuse of the elderly and vulnerable, it is imperative that there is a body setting, controlling and overseeing the standards similar to the NHS.
A more professional organisation can set the standards which will improve working conditions, training and pay for staff. Council carers are professional but because of shortages casual private carers are often used, who offer a very different unreliable service and frequently fail to turn up when scheduled. People are abandoned with no medication or personal care and all that entails.
Think of it like this – if you were a patient in hospital and the nurses fail to turn up for shift, no trained replacement is provided to change dressings, give medication, bedpans, change beds when soiled, change drips etc etc.
Would you think the hospital was doing a professional job maintaining life-giving care and that standard was acceptable and didn’t need to change, then the same applies to care of the elderly and vulnerable at home.
Christine Smith
Troon
HOW can anyone perform fully the job of an MP and an MSP? One of them must play second fiddle.
Many people thought the SNP rule change was made simply to block Joanna Cherry. If it is reversed to allow dual mandate, that will be clear proof that they were correct.
As a party member for more than 50 years, I’m disheartened, disappointed and disgusted by the behaviour of some of our so-called leading lights (phone bills, official cars to go to the fitba’ etc) It’s so sad they’re behaving exactly like the people they used to criticise.
Barry Stewart
Blantyre
THE financial markets prick up their ears as Chancellor Rachel Reeves unfolds her plan for combining 86 local authority pension funds into several larger megafunds in order to maximise investment returns in new areas, such as energy.
Labour’s record with financial matters is not encouraging. Back in 1976, James Callaghan had Britain in debt to the International Monetary Fund to the tune of £3.9 billion – about £24bn in today’s money.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, between 1997-2010, managed to treble the national debt, while letting the banks run themselves, thus contributing to the global financial crisis of 2008, when it came as a surprise to the then chancellor Alastair Darling, that the Royal Bank of Scotland was insolvent. But all that is in the past, and one must encourage new ways of managing money to assist our return to prosperity.
Malcolm Parkin
Kinnesswood, Kinross
WHAT a farce that the King – one of the world’s richest men, who is making millions depriving the NHS and RNLI of much-needed funding – celebrated his birthday by opening two food bank warehouses.
Has there ever been a more stark contrast between the haves and have-nots? Surely more people must come to realise that we do not need a royal family. It is nothing but a drain on society, gathering even more money with its £45 million pay rise this year alone.
It’s time to nationalise all royal properties, charge full tax on all their earnings and ditch the royal family as the first step of trying to create a fairer country.
With the vast amounts of money this would raise, pensioners would easily get their Winter Fuel Payment, benefits and pensions could increase to a decent level and people could at last believe in equality. Royalty is a historical hang-up that has to go.
Councillor Kenny MacLaren
Paisley
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