Gazette Letters 29.05.14

editorial image
Share this article

Speaking at debates

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Matt Bruce, Chairman of the Western Isles Labour Party for his enthusiasm to have SNP speakers in debates on independence.

I was unaware of the debate he mentioned, which has been organised by Am Paipear, until I read his letter.

Delighted with this information and seeing that my diary was free on the evening in question, my office telephoned Am Paipear to see if they would willing to have a double header debate.

In principle Am Paipear seemed quite happy if Better Together could find a second speaker for the No side.

This gives Mr Bruce a wonderful opportunity to come along and debate if they are struggling to find somebody. Having never actually met Mr Bruce despite his letter writing obsession, I imagine that he will be delighted to take this golden opportunity.

The only difficulty might be if Mr Bruce was to be like many Labour supporters and voters, now intending to vote Yes on 18th September, clearly then he will be unable to debate for the No side.

Angus MacNeil MP

Constituency office

31 Bayhead Street


Isle of Lewis

Single issue party?

Before the European Parliament Election the U.K.I.P. was subjected to a lot of abuse such as the Prime Minister referring to their supporters as “fruitcakes and nutters” which instead of weakening them probably added many to their ranks.

No doubt U.K.I.P. will now be described as a single issue party with no policy other than to withdraw from the European Union of the Regions and Cities.

The other parties will produce manifestos full of promises of what they propose to do if elected, but none of them will tell the voters the truth which is that they can only act within the restraint placed upon them by our membership of the EU.

On the other hand the “single issue” of the U.K.I.P. would allow us to have complete control of our borders, to have control over our territorial waters so that we could re-build our fishing industry and at the same time permit fish stocks to grow, to have total control over immigration, to be able to limit competitive tendering so that hospital cleaning is once more under the direction of medical staff.

It would also permit the removal of much red tape and restrictive controls which hamper our businesses, allow the removal of V.A.T.

Our Parliament and legal system would once again be supreme in our own country, so that there would be less chance of murderers and rapists roaming our streets and there would be no obstacle to deporting foreign criminals and not least we would save billions of pounds by not having to pay the EU membership fee.

William W.Scott

23 St. Baldred’s Road

North Berwick

East Lothian

EH39 4PY

Sticking with the team

In response to Dr Wilson’s letter (22/05/14), why consider Scotland as in competition with London and south east, when it is big cities in the rest of the world which are the appropriate competition?

London is full of Scots, was, is and unless the rest of the UK object to Scottish economic migrants in the future, will likely continue to be; this is part of how Scotland is getting a fair share.

Arguing that voting non-Tory and getting Tory is a good enough reason to refuse to participate in the UK, is refusing to recognise and claim responsibility for the achievements of Scots in building the historic social infrastructure of Democracy and the Institutions it requires and enables, ie, that which is represented by a kingdom that is united, cooperating (and facilitating equal regional enfranchisement) rather than in constant competition.

You claim that breaking up the long term social infrastructure would achieve higher Regional (or Scottish) income and decision-making, yet, a common sense education can see that Democracy is a thousand (or more) years old, and currently achieving Globalisation; building a consistent upgrade in the worldwide political system. What are you replacing it with? How are you adding to everyone’s income parity, and to equality amongst peoples?

Global enfranchisement is desperately required in order to meet today’s challenges, increased population, changes in industry and workforce and averting further environmental damage, by including all the people in all of the other Regions.

Everyone will then be sharing and cooperating in democratic decision making and thus reducing minority or elite government in all its forms of authoritarian overall monopoly in resource allocation.

It is these features of staying with the system which will achieve sustainable long term income parity, so that the rich get less rich and the poor get less poor, on a global scale.

This has already been occurring when changing long term historic values (such as ending the legalised slave trade) and is continued by maintaining nationwide investment of personal sovereignty in (ie, voting for) existing structure by sticking with the team, standing at the front and holding the line and thereby gaining majority stability.

Maintaining Majority Stability is a vote for enough overall disposable income left over to spend on work related to dealing with structural challenges, like unidentified causes or persistent sub-culture failure, and for, having agendas with resource allocation available to locate and restructure, and that, add to and support the formation and maintenance of trust in systems that are already in place, in ways that can achieve and that believe in the possibility of long term sustainable income parity.

It is a vote for a management culture of overall competence in Cooperation Politics.

Hazel G Mansfield

BSc (Hons) Open (Open), Dip. Econ (Open), Dip. PolGovt (Open)

11 Ford View


Isle of Lewis