YESTERDAY was “die in a ditch” Brexit day and the headlines were not about death in any water trap feature. They were about a December #GE19, following GE17 and the GE15.
As Corbyn took his place at the lectern, I was reminded of Michael Foot, preceded as he was by a series of short-term, indecisive governments of the kind that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was supposed to avoid!
Back then Conservative governments privatised, followed by Labour nationalisation, and again Tory privatisation. Each round making those already rich even richer, those powerful even more so.
And Corbyn offers to nationalise once more. Talk about history repeating. Will England reject Corbyn’s ideas as they did Foot’s?
Corbyn promises much, he sounds convincing. Things I have indeed voted for. But things I’ve seen delivered here in Scotland, right now, by the SNP. Further examination proves Corbyn’s vision falls short. To Scotland he promises nothing we do not already have.
I’m transported back to 1972: Wilson is standing, Labour look promising in the upcoming General Election. My mother is a Labour-supporting socialist, her brother an SNP member. They argue over policy, my 11-year-old self listens on. They agree on almost everything apart from independence. My mother believes in the Union.
After my uncle leaves I ask my mother “Why risk a Tory government?” She can’t answer. The same question rings in me now, and I’d ask any prospective Labour voter the same right now. Why vote Labour and risk future Tory governments? Why when their vision for the UK has already been delivered in Scotland by the SNP?
Scotland needs the stability that can only be achieved by having the government we choose every time. A guarantee only independence can deliver.
Why indeed should we risk Conservative and Unionist governments ever again?
Brian Kelly
Dunfermline
IT appears that the politically diminutive party, the LibDems or “LibDims” in the person of Willie Rennie is off on the wrong track in Scotland again.
Rennie states that people are fed up with all this constitutional wrangling. It is actually the opposite. Scots voted to remain in the EU referendum, a constitutional issue, and our vote was denied by the constitutional fact that we are in a minority in the Precious Union. His leader Swinson is for cancelling Article 50 outright, another constitutional issue, so constitutional issues are at the heart of this election.
In fact, with devolved powers at Holyrood under threat from the Tories, as Johnson’s threat to remove NHS control from Scotland is against the Scotland Act, then it is a constitutional issue and all parties to the devolution settlement (Tories excepted of course) should be concerned.
Since Swinson has previous form in the Cameron-Clegg austerity regime, and has praised many of the laws passed by that group, one must wonder how devolutionist the LibDems or -Dims actually are.
They have never quite stood up for Holyrood since its inception, especially now when the Tories are poised to take back powers to Westminster post-Brexit. That would seem to be a case to highlight Tory Party-baaaaad!
The LibDem approach to this election in Scotland needs to be scrutinised carefully. They have cosied up to the Tories in recent memory and gone against their own principles.
John Edgar
Kilmaurs
CRISDEAN Mac Fhearghais perhaps didn’t notice we had a Plan B, a Plan C and a Plan D for currency in the White Paper. Made no difference except giving them targets to lie about.
The answer to the “currency question” should of course been “There are nearly 200 hundred countries in the world which have chosen a currency option that suits them best. An independent Scottish Government will do exactly that at the appropriate point. Or do you think we are the only country too stupid to do so?” End of.
David McEwan Hill
Sandbank, Argyll
I AM very tired of hearing about the need to explain a Plan B. Do folk not recognise that the Boris dirty tricks machine is the most efficient imaginable and would be delighted to know these details even before they have had to reply to Plan A? They would have their plans for the demolition of Plan B perfected even before we ask for a Section 30, and of Plans C and D as well.
Just look at the shenanigans of Boris and his tax-payer funded minion in the past few weeks. Does anyone still not realise that they had every twist and turn of their proposals, the opposition’s response and their next move gamed to perfection long in advance? And did this not all depend on working out what the opposition’s response would be at every single stage? They had already mapped out their way to counter Parliament’s Plan X when the process was still at Plan A.
Of course there can be a Plan B for independence, and a Plan C and more, all perfectly legal, if required. But where is the sense in making all our future moves clear in advance? Boris and co do not need our help in finding ways to oppose us.
L McGregor
Falkirk
MATT Hancock insists the NHS is not for sale. Well of course it’s not! Why buy something when all its money-making assets like drug provision are being negotiated away to Donald Chump by the sleekit Tories for nothing?
Steve Cunningham
via text
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