SO Mark MacDonald has returned to Holyrood (The National, March 14). He does so in his apparent belief that his behaviour and its seriousness is the only one which counts and with an insistence, inaccurate if understandable, that it was limited to a few inappropriate texts – which he has apologised for.
I trust that the parliamentary authorities do not share this assessment and consider that banishing his office to the basement is an adequate response to behaviour which has resulted in ill health for one of the targeted women. Since you report that one is working from home rather than risk an encounter, one at least does not find it enough.
The very real problem for most working women in dealing with sexual harassment at work is providing proof of its existence sufficient to ensure action.
For me and women generally therefore, what happens next is going to determine whether all the recent publicly expressed disapproval of such behaviour and the subsequent inquiries and committees is genuine enough to involve taking action.
If our Parliament has the powers to remove an MSP proven to have caused such distress on it premises it should use them. If it has not, it should acquire them in short order. This is our Parliament too and women have a right to expect it to take a lead.
Dot Jessiman
Turriff
TWO wrongs might not make a right but it seems strange that only one offending individual, Mark McDonald, has been singled out for public scorn.
As it would be unlikely that Mr McDonald has committed the entire 45 per cent of offences – the figure from a recent survey – there must be MSPs who are staying silent when they owe it to the integrity of Holyrood and all within it to come forward.
It must also be so that either by silence or by being among those actively pointing fingers at Mark McDonald, there are those who are not acquitting themselves in this matter in the manner the electorate would expect of MSPs.
Ian Johnstone
Peterhead
FOLLOWING on so shortly after the disappearance of Fred in the Pentland Hills, the loss of yet another radio-tagged golden eagle is disappointing (‘12th’ tagged eagle vanishes, The National March 14).
All the evidence points to the fact that these disappearances are suspicious. Why haven’t any remains of the birds, or in the latest case, the radio tag, been found? Fred’s radio tag stopped transmitting on January 21, 2018, and started again on January 24, with a GPS location some 15 miles offshore of St Andrews.
How did it get there? I cannot envisage any scenario where this would happen without some kind of human interference. However, this evidence is purely circumstantial and it has been difficult for the police to secure enough evidence.
Recent reports have highlighted that driven grouse shooting is unlikely to be economic without significant predator management and the retention of grouse in higher numbers than would be otherwise sustainable. However, predators are not the only problem. Overgrazing by sheep and deer also have a major impact on grouse numbers and are often left uncontrolled.
EU intervention is also required to help make grouse shooting more cost effective. In 2014 owners of grouse moors received around £4 million in EU subsidy, given to the richest members of our society, including the UK’s richest man, the Duke of Westminster and Duncan Davidson, the founder of housebuilding giant Persimmon Homes. In 2014, Davidson’s estate received £1.6m in EU subsidy, with another £1.3m in 2015.
Many would claim that driven grouse shooting is part of Scotland’s cultural heritage, but watching our most iconic and endangered birds of prey also has cultural value and is the hobby of many, not just a privileged few hundred.
If grouse shooting cannot operate economically without the extinction of protected species, such as birds of prey, then its future must be in doubt. If it is hard to get justice in the courts for possible persecution of protected species, then it is time the law is reviewed and changed. If the grouse industry cannot ensure compliance with the law, then licensing will be inevitable and an end to grouse shooting a possibility.
Peter Rowberry
via email
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