I WAS concerned to read that Extinction Rebellion has resigned from the planning group of the new Citizens’ Climate Assembly in protest (“Why we’re walking away from Citizens’ Assembly on climate”, November 2).
The National did well to publish the actual statement of the XR members who initially took part in the assembly’s Stewarding Group – I can totally understand why they wanted out.
I would certainly agree civil servants “have a strong incentive not to rock the boat”, and that consequently some of the experts chosen to present to the Citizens’ Assembly may well have a perverse agenda.
But I would also think there is an opportunity here for XR to take on any “experts” who may present evidence selectively. It’s not clear from the statement whether XR’s suggestions were simply outvoted, and if so, by whom (names, please). And if the framework for discussion is now seriously flawed, then the politicians who are overseeing all this must be called to account, so who are they?
With strong parallels in the Covid crisis I share XR’s frustration at governments over their half-baked approach to the massive climate crisis now clearly foreseeable.
So might we yet see some counteraction during the six weeks of the assembly? Will XR look to the assembly members themselves to join the dots, or will we see an independent and truly transparent assembly emerge?
Colin Holden
Edinburgh
THE only thing that Extinction Rebellion makes me angry about is them.
Cutting themselves off from any form of dialogue serves no purpose other than to massage their own egos. We’re all on the same page about climate change and what to do about it.
We need dialogue and consensus, not disruption.
You break the law, then suffer the consequences. Because folks are getting sick fed up with your inane and childish spit-the-dummy-out-style antics.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
DAILY, the number of alleged Covid deaths is posted on our TV screens.
Can we also see an estimated figure for the number of deaths that are due to the Covid restrictions, for example, cancer and cardiac patients who missed out on hospital diagnosis and treatment, and others who died of loneliness, despair and suicide?
Geoff Moore
Highland
MANY commentators have expressed concern over the UK Government’s method of allocating contracts providing support to the attack on Covid-19, where no tendering process has taken place, so multiple companies cannot bid.
The UK Government is further tarnished by these contracts seemingly awarded to friends of party, politicians or advisers to politicians.
Speed is essential in fighting this virus, but being open and transparent on the use of our taxes is also required.
Obfuscation seems to be the communication method of choice now. For instance, Test and Trace is branded as NHS England/Wales, but it is actually outsourced to Serco.
Test and Protect is branded as NHS Scotland, and is run by local health area professionals that have been doing this job successfully for years.
Spending on outsourced services do not result in consequentials for the Scottish Government. So far, £12 billion has been spent on the UK’s Test and Trace.
I could see initial contracts being offered in this manner for speed but future contracts follow the standard process, but strict shortened times lines are used, meaning bidding companies work 24/7 to bid.
The latest £347 million contract being allocated is to Randox, a private healthcare provider linked to the Tory Party, whose testing kits had to be recalled in the summer due to contamination, again with no competitive tendering.
Visions of healthcare suppliers circling the UK National Health Service like vultures watching a dying animal comes to mind.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
AS much as we Yessers love to see a front-page headline about DRoss being probed, a headline announcing the Scottish Government making £14 million available to help the mental health of young Scots might garner more support from those currently undecided.
I think more good news examples showing how the Scottish Government is really making a difference should be given prominence on the front page.
Who really cares about the part-time MP?
Otherwise – keep up the good work.
Andy Pearson
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 hereComments are closed on this article