IT is quite evident that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government operate under very different parameters, rules and regulations to those of the Westminster parliament and government.
The very precise questions with the necessary short preamble put forward by Jamie Dawson KC have been explicitly answered, with plenty of detail concerning time and place and reasoning, by former first minister Nicola Sturgeon.
READ MORE: Questions about questions in Nicola Sturgeon's Covid Inquiry session
She has shown her usual professionalism with her responses, with a touch of human emotion concerning her personal involvement in the decisions made, which had nothing to do with any political point-scoring as suggested by her enemies.
What Nicola Sturgeon did was to guide the people of Scotland through the pandemic of Covid-19. Mistakes were made, which she admitted to. By the same token, she guided us through the two years, with all its ups and downs which we are all aware of.
READ MORE: RECAP: Nicola Sturgeon faces UK Covid Inquiry
When questioned by Jamie Dawson KC, Nicola Sturgeon answered that independence was not even on her mind during the Covid-19 period. Michael Gove was informed that the independence question was put on the back burner completely at that time.
Nicola Sturgeon’s response were an education for the viewer like myself in the how and why her government made its ‘’collective” decisions, even when under guidance from the provision of medical and scientific advice.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
JUST as we all know that “we are committed to…” actually means “we will keep promising but have no intention of implementing…”, we also know that “refuse to confirm or deny” actually means “yes, it’s true, but you are not supposed to know”. Westminster is refusing to confirm or deny that the US is going to store nuclear weapons at Lakenheath because of the threat from Russia.
Why? If the US fears conflict with Russia, is this to make sure that a nuclear first strike from that country targets the UK first, to give America time to launch the retaliation, even if the UK is vapourised? Did Westminster ask those living within a 30-mile radius if they are happy about this, or will they find it a fait accompli and simply have to put up with it, just like Glasgow and surroundings?
READ MORE: The era of the peace dividend has been over for several years
If Coulport is safe near Glasgow, then Lakenheath must be safe too. In that case, why not remove all these American weapons at Coulport to Lakenheath too, or better still, to Burghfield? No need then for the dangerous transport of them up and down our Scottish roads for servicing, as it could all be done close by.
For me, this brings the horrifying prospect of a Third World War much nearer, the most insane move yet for our power-hungry leaders with their delusions of global prestige and importance, still looking back with admiration to Thatcher’s Falklands War and Blair’s Iraq adventure. Bombing the Houthis to show who is boss is not working and the Tories are facing wipe-out A decent war alongside the US will save them at the ballot box. Worth risking a worldwide war for.
When will they learn? The UK is a nonentity, a very minor bit player on the world stage, with only one skill, the ability to interfere and maximise trouble. Or when the US says “jump”, no longer even asking “how high?”, just jumping anyway.
Come on, Humza, time to stand up and be counted and say “NOT IN SCOTLAND’S NAME”.
L McGregor
Falkirk
ALEX Beckett in the Sunday National (Jan 28) says of the SNP, “maybe the leadership is wanting to push independence even further back” and asks if it is “past time for indy supporters to look elsewhere”. Andy Anderson asks: “Are the SNP keen to win this General Election?”
Recent attempts to coorie up to Starmer by Yousaf means that these concerns must be addressed by the SNP leadership. Others have mentioned complacency about the coming election. This I doubt. It’s more likely the acceptance of serious losses to come and an unwillingness to take counter measures to limit these.
Drew Reid
Falkirk
I WELCOME the “national emergency” claim to retain resident communities raised by Kate Forbes MSP (Forbes calls for ‘national emergency’ to protect Highlands and Islands from depopulation, Jan 26). She backs compulsory purchase for affordable housing land, but she must agree that “land take” at existing use value is essential.
There is a precedent. New Town Corporations had these powers before devolution. To achieve results we need an Emergency Housing Bill this year ahead of the bigger Land Reform Bill.
Communities, public agencies and crofting common grazings committees must be tasked to identify suitable land. Prefab eco-builders must be identified and house designs agreed. Planners should be instructed to fast-track approvals, and a timescale set out for rolling completions and allocations for tenancies protected by rural burdens. If these essentials are agreed, we can begin to deliver as a caring nation. Had land take for the dualled A9 and the Edinburgh trams had been law, we could have saved bags of money to build essential affordable homes.
Rob Gibson
Evanton, Ross-shire
ANENT the misdescription of the Makar as the Poet Laureate (Letters, Jan 29), the other morning, whilst flicking through the stations on the car radio in the forlorn hope of finding something worth listening to, I heard a BBC Scotland presenter pronounce the word “Mayker!” I switched over to the CD player, and avoided country and western tracks because I really didn’t want to be seen crying.
Les Hunter
Lanark
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