Greens’ speculation that heavy spending on public transport will result in a significant increase in its use and a reduction in energy use is unfounded. It will almost always be faster, cheaper and easier to use. To get there by bus or train you need to get to and from bus stops and / or stations. This is especially true when one has children and / or belongings. Many journeys cannot be made by bus or train in real time.
Buses operate economically in places with high population density and live in many flats. Even so, owning one is still beyond the reach of the average person. Many people do not have a bus stop within easy walking distance. Even so, walking in the dark and / or in the rain and waiting at a stop is not an attractive option for most people.
The Greens want a huge amount of public money to be spent on rehabilitating the branch railways, without realizing that they were built primarily for freight, which was their main source of income. The trains that run on them will now serve only a small number of people and need to subsidize those who will not use them.
In the last 60 years, countless passenger train routes have been closed worldwide. Mexico, with a larger population than the United Kingdom, is no more. There are only three per week between the two major cities in New Zealand. In Canada, Calgary – a rich city with a population of over a million and once a railway hub – has no passenger train. The same is true of many other places in North America, Africa and Australia. Despite a threefold increase in population in the latter, no new passenger lines have been built since the 1800s, and most existing ones have been closed. It’s amazing that the Greens don’t seem to know any of the above. They are not serious parties and to include them in the Scottish Government is irresponsible and undemocratic.
It says a lot about the state of our politics that allegations of abuse by the BBC’s Sarah Smith were immediately used by Scottish Conservative and Liberal Democrat Unionist politicians to denounce “nationalism”. ۔
It is evident from the many newspaper headlines and the Twitter accounts of opposition MSPs and their parties that the bile, hatred and suspicion expressed by Sarah Smith was also presented to Nicola Sturgeon and Kate Forbes on a daily basis. Which, of course, made the video an overnight sensation.
In a healthy political environment, opposition politicians will make this balanced observation for the greater good, but their party lines and allegiances clearly negate this option.
Alastair McBay, Methon, Perth
The “bile and hatred” that journalist Sarah Smith experienced while reporting on Scottish politics should come as no surprise to anyone. Everyone who casts their eyes upon it, wants a go. God forbid that you are Scottish and do not agree with freedom because you are more likely to be called a “traitor”, as former SNP MP Phil Boswell pointed out on Twitter quoting Sarah Smith.
In addition, we have the current SNP MP, James Dorman, who says that “America would be the best place to avoid all its imaginary troubles.” This hatred and animosity towards the freedom fighters is a national humiliation and it shows our proud nation to the rest of the world that it is nothing but extraordinary and narrow minded. Now it’s time for Nicola Sturgeon to stop Wesley’s words and take action against James Dorman and others. It is no longer acceptable for him to temporarily apologize for expressing his hatred and disgust for a while, in which the SNP’s organizational structure has turned him into a very dirty carpet.
One can only hope that the time will come when our nation will look outwards and once again become a welcome, proud and comprehensive nation.
Richard Ellison, Edinburgh
It is really “sad” that Alexander Mackay (letters 18 February) once again takes pleasure in using words like “hate” and “bile”, but only if he supports them in favor of the SNP or Scotland. Doers can try to pin on other people. For self-determination
The abuse of BBC reporter Sarah Smith should be condemned and condemned outright, but it is questionable whether the abuse was simply “because her father was a prominent British politician” rather than her. Due to his sometimes misunderstood comments. ; His father was generally regarded with respect in the political arena, and even Mr McKay was called a “Scottish Nationalist”.
What is regrettable is Mr. McKay’s repeated attempts to link Scottish nationalism, patriotism to British-English far-right politics, and to former German nationalism.
Alexander Mackay would have taken the opportunity to condemn all forms of abuse against women, especially in the political arena, such as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has received repeated death threats. Others may have more respect for their own views, although they seem to be locked in the idea that in the long run Scotland is more likely to achieve our common aspirations through its own government than Through the government’s intention to fulfill the wishes of a corrupt group of government school children in another country.
Stan Grodinsky, Longnadry, East Luthian
The SNPMSP has apologized for suggesting abuse to the BBC’s Sarah Smith.
The Scottish Government told us that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) report on the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) in Scottish Education would be an independent assessment.
It is now clear that this assessment is not free. The initial draft of the OECD was prepared with the intervention of the Scottish Government, as reported in the Times this week. So, for example, the draft “Lack of Mathematics and Science” in the report becomes “Stable in Mathematics and Science”.
Privately paid consultancy reports are open to criticism that anyone who pays Piper calls for money.
It should not be accompanied by consultation on matters of public good, which are paid for by the public purse. Education is a very important issue to be linked to ridiculous relationships between client governments and consultants.
One would expect integrity from an organization like OECD. Instead, we have a cumbersome process under which the consultant, OECD, has allowed the client, the Scottish Government, to change the content of the draft report.
Thus the integrity of the OECD has been compromised. Heads should fall into the OECD, otherwise the organization is open to accusations that it is only engaged in cheap skate consultancy.
Several senior SNP figures appear to be working to reassure key Scotland-based defense contractors, particularly at Clyde and Fourth, that they will continue to work on defense contracts, even if the SNP has its ultimate goal. Get it Independence from Britain.
A long order from them, I would suggest.
Because let’s face it, if Scotland were to cease to be part of the UK at any future date, the powers at Holyroad could be assured that further agreements would be reached with the Royal Navy Scottish Building Yards in Scotland. Will not
Of course, it is possible that in the future the independent Scottish government will want to establish its own defense system.
But one can understand why companies like Babcock, BAE Systems and Thales may be apprehensive about this possibility, especially when one considers the size of future Scottish budgets.
The facts speak for themselves – there are more than 30 million taxpayers in England and Wales, but only 2.5 million in Scotland.
Is this another example of the ignorance and incompetence of the SNP administration of Hollywood?
Robert IG Scott, Ceres, Five
On 23 June 2016, the UK voted to stay or leave the European Union. The turnout in Scotland was 67.2%. I believe the lowest in the UK. The results showed that 62% of the turnout was maintained.
As a percentage of Scottish voters, the Scottish people, it was 41.6%. Not a majority of Scots but a minority of Scots.
Since the vote, nationalist politicians, journalists, bloggers and followers of their camp have insisted that Scotland was expelled from the European Union against its will.
Don’t forget, Scotland was not a member of the European Union. Was the UK, and the EU had no interest in negotiating with Sturgeon and co.
There is no justification for claiming that a majority of the Scots voted to stay. Such a claim is a lie and has become the biggest lie in the current constitutional dispute (there is no “debate” so I prefer “dispute”).
Laura Waddell’s claim (point of view, February 17) that Labor leader Sir Carestarmer’s position on rejoining the European Union is a good reason to leave the UK is baseless. Pure and simple.
Stuart Stephen, Polo, Rossshire
We welcome your feedback. Write to [email protected] We will not print full details – including name, address and phone number. Keep letters less than 300 words, without attachments, and avoid ‘editor / reader letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include the date, page number, and title.
A message from the editor
Thank you for reading this article. We rely more on your cooperation than ever before because the change in consumer habits caused by the Corona virus affects our advertisers. If you haven’t already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checking journalism with a digital subscription. Click on this link for more information.