Who cares?

Sent to the Herald:  12th June 2007.  Not published.

Dear Sir,

Jim Sheridan MP claims (letters, 12 June) in response to the First Minister’s call for an adequate constitutional mechanism ”so people can get together and achieve the best for their respective constituencies” that such a system already exists. Mr Sheridan suggests that this mechanism is Westminster. Would that be the same Westminster that likes to ignore our own parliament in Edinburgh? The same Westminster that has only 59 members from Scotland out of a total of 646? The same Westminster where only the SNP members stand up for Scottish interests? Maybe Jim Sheridan simply asks; “Who cares?”

Mr Sheridan appears to take some pride in his voting record in Westminster. Maybe his party will commend his enthusiasm in expressing views on issues as diverse as the Standards Board for England, Local Government in England and Wales, Acute Services in the English NHS and travel for school children in England. However, the electorate of Paisley and Renfrewshire North as well as voters in England will be asking why this representative for a Scottish constituency is making such decisions when many do not even affect his own constituents. Removing Jim Sheridan from the London gravy train presents another good argument in the case for Scottish independence.

Yours for Scotland,

Role of the Scots Secretary

Sent to the Herald: 12th June 2007. Not published.

Sir

Since devolution, New Labour Scottish Secretaries have only ever had one role: so-called ‘Nat-bashing’. Reid, Liddell, Darling, and Alexander have all been little more than tax-payer funded election campaigners, whose sole purpose was to denounce the SNP at every opportunity – to little effect, given the result in May.

Every other political party has realised the irrelevance of this role, and proposes some interim constitutional affairs minister, to oversee the operation of the communication mechanisms established as part of the devolution settlement, or until independence is achieved and Scotland and England can exchange ambassadors.

Now it seems Gordon Brown will continue to ride roughshod over political consensus and reappoint a full-time Nat-basher-in-chief. After spending weeks accusing the new Scottish Executive of wanting to pick fights with Westminster, it is ironic that the evidence of this and the ‘Gaddafigate’ scandal points to the very opposite being the case.

Yours etc

Impeach Blair

Sent to the Herald:  1st June 2007.  Not Published

Dear Sir,

Paul Collins (letters, 1 June) attempts to berate the First Minister
for supporting the Impeach Blair campaign in Westminster and also for
not retracting “comments at the time of the UN intervention in
Bosnia”. Presumably Mr Collins means “NATO intervention in Kosovo”?
Two separate organisations and two distinct territories. Unionists
never let the facts get in the way of a cheap political jibe though.

Would this be the same intervention that the OSCE said in their
inquiry afterwards led to a “vast increase in lootings, killings,
rape, kidnappings and pillage once the NATO air war began on March
24″? Mr Collins, who is no doubt a Labour supporter, has probably
never even looked at any comments or reports on the incident in the
years after the act of unpardonable folly.

With regards to impeachment over Iraq, that is a campaign that gained
support from individual Plaid Cymru, SNP, Conservative, Liberal
Democrat, Respect and Independent Members of Parliament. Iraq has been
a most monumental foreign policy and humanitarian disaster. The
shocking 1956 Suez invasion looks minimal by comparison and the
British political elite should be held to account. Blair lied to
Parliament, Iraq lies in ruins, Western companies make millions out of
the invasion while hundreds of thousands of people are dead.

It is sad that Mr Collins obviously sees no shame in all this or in
the irony of Orwellian ‘bombing for peace’ by Britain.

Yours for Scotland,