Post Office “burying” yet more bad news

Sent to the Evening Times: 10th January 2008. Not Published

Sir,

With all the current media frenzy about Post Office closures, the Post Office evidently decided it was a good opportunity to quietly bury news of yet another closure in Glasgow, in addition to the main closure programme. Bothwell Street Post Office in the City Centre is to close on 13^th March, to be replaced by a counter within WH Smiths on Sauchiehall Street. This had been out to consultation, but they conveniently chose this week to quietly make the formal announcement of the bad news.

Post offices provide a vital service both to local communities and to businesses, and the closure of the branch which serves Glasgow’s international financial services district cannot be defended as a change for the better. Neither can the potential job losses, as the 16 staff will not be automatically transferred to the new location.

Post offices in Scotland are currently operating at a relatively small annual loss of about £7.5million. The London government’s solution appears to be simply to close branches. The service has been seriously undermined in recent years, with functions such as pension and benefit payments now mainly bypassing the Post Office, and TV Licensing being taken away. It’s the combination of all the separate services which makes the Post Office viable and invaluable to its users.

Our national postal service is not just a business; it is a vital public service. Any normal country would defend this service, but our Labour government only treat it with contempt – what hope have we got when the Department of Work and Pensions now use a private mail company rather than Royal Mail?

Yet another reason for Scotland to ditch London rule and take control of its own affairs.

Yours, etc,

Blame for Post Office Closures

Sent to the Herald:  9th January 2008.  Not Published.

Sir,

As Glasgow comes to terms with the loss of 24 Post Offices, it is worth reflecting on where responsibility for this decision ultimately lies.

The simple fact is that the Labour Party is to blame for robbing communities in Glasgow and across Scotland of these key community assets.

The Labour Party abandoned the notion of the Post Office as a public service and passed laws that made profitability the key.  None of Glasgow’s Labour MPs opposed this in Parliament, which makes their attempts to now claim that they do not support the closures ring all the more hollow.

Nobody disputes that the Post Office needs to adapt to the new technologies and demands of the 21st Century.  As long as decisions about Scotland’s postal service are made in London by an arrogant and out of touch Labour government, however, it seems there is little hope of the Post Office properly meeting the needs of people in Glasgow.

Yours etc

Tearing Down the Ringfences

Sent to the Herald:  31st December 2007.  Not Published.

Sir,

Over the last few days your pages have covered several scaremongering stories about the abolition of ringfencing of Council budgets. If we were to believe them then we can expect a Great Flood to drown much of Scotland, vulnerable children to be left to fend for themselves, and no more Hogmanay at street parties in our cities!

These stories have been spun by Labour opposition MSPs who are struggling to find anything substantive to criticise the SNP Government on, and are forced to rely on the doom mongering that the electorate rejected in May. Labour MSPs evidently don’t trust even Labour-run councils to allocate funds in the most appropriate way for their local communities.

It was refreshing therefore to read COSLA President (and Labour councillor) Pat Watters’ opinion piece in Monday’s Herald, fully endorsing the removal of ringfencing. As he said, the reduction in the bureacracy alone will provide for more funds to be directed at these vital services, rather than on reporting back to central government.

Councils are accountable to the electorate, not to the Government, and this democratisation of councils’ spending abilities is yet another refreshing and positive initiative by the SNP Government.

Abolition of the Graduate Endowment – 2

Sent to the Herald:  19th December 2007.  Not Published 

Sir

Richard Baker comes up with many reasons for not supporting the Graduate Endowment Abolition Bill (letters, 19th December), but the main reason he seems likely to vote against it on Thursday (20th Dec) is simply because it has been proposed by the Scottish National Party.

He is not the first, and unlikely to be the last, former leader of the NUS to sell out on the principles he once campaigned for at the first whiff of a parliamentary career.

The SNP Government has, for some strange reason, been given the tightest budget settlement since devolution.  This is one reason why John Swinney has freely admitted that the Government is unable – at present – to write off student debt.  There is also the small matter of no wider parliamentary support – there is no sign of willingness on the part of New
Labour to support such a move were it brough forward, despite their hysterical condemnation of the present situation.  In these circumstances, abolition of the Graduate Endowment is a welcome first move.

No doubt all the self-proclaimed socialists and former student radicals on the New Labour benches will find a way of convincing themselves that voting with the Conservatives against the principle of free education is the right thing to do.  Whether or not they are able to convince Scotland’s students is another matter.

Yours etc

Abolition of the Graduate Endowment – 1

Sent to the Herald:  19th December 2007.  Not Published 

Dear Sir,

Alex Orr could be forgiven for thinking that he has been savaged by
the proverbial dead sheep, following the murmurs from Messrs Baker and
Fraser about student funding (letters, 19 December). Both Richard
Baker and Murdo Fraser take a similar position in their letters.
However, for anyone that has watched the increasingly similar traits
of both the British Labour and Conservative parties over the last
decade this will come as no surprise.

They complain about “a de facto freeze” and “a disgraceful funding
package”. One could be forgiven for thinking that they refer to the
pocket money block grant passed by London to our national legislature
in Edinburgh, but being Unionists they are of course unable to
complain about that.

Considering the recent grant allocation from London it is impressive
that the Scottish Government has managed to fit in so many manifesto
commitments already. If our country (Scotland) was not paying hand
over fist for the occupation of foreign territories, the servicing of
PFI contracts, existing and new Weapons of Mass Destruction then there
would be no problem in writing-off student debt. Indeed we could
reintroduce benefit entitlement for students (taken away by Mr
Fraser’s party) and reintroduce, in full, index-linked grants for
students (taken away by Mr Baker’s party) were we not paying for a
number of Westminster concocted follies.

Finally, I should say that I remember Richard Baker from his time as
NUS Scotland President, when I was a member of the Federation of
Student Nationalists. From his letter nothing, other than his job,
appears to have changed. His advocacy of student support is as
opportunistic and half-hearted now as it has ever been. I only hope
his seat in the Scottish Parliament was worth it.

Yours for Scotland,

Triumvirate of British Unionism

Sent to the Herald:  10th December 2007.  Not Published. 

Dear Sir,

It is good that despite the well documented problems of Wendy Alexander that she can find the time to engage in the National Conversation about the constitutional future for Scotland. It is interesting what difference a few months in opposition can do to people who previously would have described such discussions as a waste of time or of no concern to the country. You report though (10 December) that Wendy Alexander wants “powers for Scotland to set some taxes and to be assigned a share of other taxes set in London”. Why only “some taxes” and what is “a share”? I understand why Ms Alexander would want to avoid financial accountability and responsibility on a personal level but there is no good reason why this must extend to Scotland as a whole. We, as a nation, would be perfectly capable of raising and spending our finances and setting the related policies in this regard.

The concept that is now being dreamt up by the triumvirate of British Unionism – New Labour, the Liberals and Tories – to have some form of fiscal semi-autonomy model has only one intention and that is to try and stem the tide of independence. They might even be able to eventually produce a model for collection of “some” taxes in Scotland but the question would always remain about the rest. Questions will also remain about funding UK imperialist adventures overseas, our lack of standing at European and international levels,a branch broadcasting system, payment for Trident and so on. They should have learned from before that transferring “some” taxation powers to Scotland is not enough to counter the will of many of us who seek full self-government. Our constitutional discussions should extend beyond money to considering our dignity and equality as a nation. I can understand why some fear discussing these topics though.

I want our MSP’s to have the responsibility that parliamentarians in normal countries exercise and don’t want them having to act simply as administrators of a revised Scottish Consolidated Fund. Scotland deserves nothing less than independence.

Yours for Scotland,

Finnish Independence

Sent to the Herald: 9th December 2007.  Not Published. 

Sir,

It struck me as odd that the national flag of Finland was flying from
Glasgow City Chambers last Thursday, instead of the usual Saltire. I
have since discovered that 6th December 1917 was Finnish Independence
Day. I have to commend the Labour administration for their recognition
of 90 years of Independence for a small northern European nation such as
Finland. This recognition is of course contrary to the Labour Party’s
denial that an Independent Scotland could ever be viable.

Prosperous Finland has never looked back since it became independent,
and neither will an Independent Scotland.

Celebrating Finnish Independence

Sir,

It struck me as odd that the national flag of Finland was flying from Glasgow City Chambers last Thursday, instead of the usual Saltire. I have since discovered that 6th December 1917 was Finnish Independence Day. I have to commend the Labour administration for their recognition of 90 years of Independence for a small northern European nation such as Finland. This recognition is of course contrary to the Labour Party’s denial that an Independent Scotland could ever be viable.

Prosperous Finland has never looked back since it became independent, and neither will an Independent Scotland.

Non-Resignation of Wendy Alexander

Sent to the Herald:  4th December 2007.  Not Published.

Sir

Wendy Alexander’s decision not to resign – yet – as a result of her
‘unintentional’ breach of electoral law is astounding.  She and her
colleagues in the New Labour party have spent practically every day since
4th May accusing the SNP Government of telling lies and betraying the
trust of the Scottish people.  Yet when incontrovertible evidence is
presented that information given to the press about her knowledge of Paul
Green’s donation was false, a different standard seems to apply.

Her statement that she will stay on as leader of the Labour group in the
Scottish Parliament lacked only an instruction that she now expected the
Scottish press corps to fall into line and start reporting something else.
Sadly for her, Labour’s days of dominating Scottish politics and media
are over – and at this rate are unlikely to return any time soon.

The real reason for her lack of resignation is not her intention or
otherwise in accepting an illegal donation.  It is because she is beholden
to an increasingly inept leadership in London which alsa seems to be
gripped by the denial of political reality affecting New Labour in
Scotland.  No wonder the Scottish Government has an approval rating five
times that of Gordon Brown.

Yours etc

Independence Referendum

Sent to the Herald:  13th November 2007.  Not Published.

Sir,

First Allan Wilson, and now Brian Fitzpatrick (Letters, today) raises the
possibility of New Labour deigning to consent to the voters of Scotland
exercising their popular sovereignty in an Independence referendum.  These
are welcome contributions to the National Conversation on Scotland’s
constitutional future.

It is interesting that former Labour parliamentarians appear to have more
sympathy with this idea than their incumbent counterparts, but perhaps not
surprising.  Westminster Labour MPs in particular will never countenance
an Independence referendum for exactly the same reason as Gordon Brown
bottled out of calling an election this autumn – they know that the result
would not suit them at all.

When the question of Independence is finally put to the voters of Scotland
in a free and fair referendum, without the caveats and leading questions
of the opinion polls favoured by Unionists, the answer will be yes.

Having fully read the National Conversation document, both Allan Wilson
and Brian Fitzpatrick will know that Annex B contains a draft Referendum
Bill that it is within the powers and competency of the Scottish
Parliament to pass.  The sooner they can convince New Labour at Holyrood
to support this Bill, the better.

Yours etc