Readers' Letters: It's cultural cowardice to remove Robert Burns from Higher English subjects
Should we not feel proud that the words of Robert Burns, written in the guid Scots tongue, could inspire revolutionaries not just in Germany, but the world over? Or, politics apart, that there is scarcely a country in the world where his poetry has not been feted? It fair dumfooners me thairfor, that officials of the SQA have removed him “as a standalone author for Scottish pupils taking Higher English”. Their reason being that, last summer, very few pupils chose to answer a question on Burns.
As much as anything, it is the casual acceptance of this fact that angers me, as if there is nothing to be done. If it is indeed the case that pupils aren’t answering on Burns, perhaps the officials of the SQA and others with educational powers, ought not to be accepting it, but finding out why it is the case and then seeking to do something about it.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdYes, there might be some resistance from those who denigrate the Scots tongue. All the more reason for taking them on, instead of hiding behind the mantra of consumer choice. On this question, the cultural cowardice of educational high heid yins is the last thing Scotland needs.
Alastair McLeish, Edinburgh
Real help required
What difference is there - morally, medically, or in any other way - between an alcoholic reaching the beyond-help stage and drinking on the street or in secluded places, and a drug addict shooting up anywhere he or she can find? Yet the addict is now supplied with facilities to do what he or she must in Scotland and alcoholics, who also die in numbers, do not. Few families, including my own, have not watched a loved one suffer and, in many cases, die.
The point that rankles is that in either case, under the SNP, there is not enough treatment available to help them get off their harmful way of life - they seem to prefer to spend our taxes elsewhere. The new clinic in Glasgow seems to be all about making the addicted comfortable while they continue the lifestyle that in time may very well be fatal.
Something, surely, is very seriously and fundamentally wrong with this approach.
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh
Eradicating poverty
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdJohn Swinney is right to prioritise eliminating child poverty, but the SNP has had 17 years to make meaningful progress. Many children born under their tenure are now adults struggling to find jobs. This problem has been compounded by the SNP’s refusal to match England’s business-friendly policies, such as extending rate reductions to the hospitality sector. Furthermore, local authorities have placed extra burdens on businesses through higher rates, increased parking charges, and extended charging hours. Despite years of evidence, neither the SNP nor John Swinney seem to understand that simply taxing and spending won’t solve poverty.
The UK Government has exacerbated the problem by increasing National Insurance contributions, making it more expensive for companies to create jobs, and we are starting to see recruitment deferrals as a result.
The real path to reducing poverty lies in encouraging a vibrant economy that generates private sector jobs. This boosts incomes, enhances self-worth, reduces spending on unemployment benefits, and increases the tax take to support those in need.
The SNP’s tax hikes over the years have clearly failed to deliver results, so time to try something new. Why not consider the Laffer curve? Reduce taxes on businesses and workers to stimulate growth and job creation, and increase overall tax income.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdLet’s ignore the usual excuses “if only Scotland could borrow more” or “if only Scotland was independent”. If a job was created for every SNP “if only”, Scotland would have eliminated unemployment long ago.
Brian Barbour, Berwick Upon Tweed
Carbon horse trading
I was interested in your Rural Affairs article. “Firm buys Highland estate for rewilding and carbon credits” referring to Dorback Estate on Speyside. I don’t know the details, but I note the pattern that is developing. In common with many other such schemes, it claims to be the largest such project in the UK. This one goes a lot further though, actually claiming to “save the planet”. If you look at a map of the world, and then note the size of Scotland, let alone a medium sized estate on Speyside, the chances of them being able to save the world is fairly remote. That is taking the spinning too far.
But here is the interesting thing. The company involved want to take credit for their project, but they also want to sell their carbon credits. Other people buy these because that allows them to claim credit for the CO2 mitigation produced. The clue is in the name. In addition to this, almost certainly the company will be applying to the Forestry Grant Scheme for base funding to plant any trees, and the Scottish Government will take credit for that as well. So, on the face of it, any new woods here will be getting tripled claimed for the carbon they are supposedly soaking up. This is why land in Scotland is increasing in value so quickly. Going forwards, we see other such projects being sold on once they are established at huge profit. The carbon credits can be sold on the open market as well, with an expectation that they too will gain in value.
It is time now that we called out what is happening in plain sight in front of us. Carbon trading is about sequestering money, not carbon, and is remarkably effective in doing so, but it is not achieving anything other than inflating the price of land and creating problems for everyone else. Carbon trading should be made illegal in Scotland, trees planted or regenerated on their own merits, and land value brought back in to line with what it can actually produce. We would have a much stronger rural economy if that was the case. At the moment, the silly money being generated by carbon trading is corrupting not just forestry but the whole land management sector, and making life more difficult for everyone.
Victor Clements B Sc (Hons), Native Woodland Advice
Fossil fuel rethink
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdWise words from Russell Borthwick, Chamber chief executive of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce.
He asked John Swinney to change his anti-fossil fuel stance and support domestic oil and gas production arguing that this was preferable to having to import fossil fuels from other nations.
Up jump the usual suspects. Scottish Minister for Climate Action Gillian Martin said “We are clear that any further extraction and use of fossil fuel must be consistent with Scotland’s climate obligations”.
Since decisions on North Sea oil and gas licensing are reserved to the UK government, another UK talking head waffled on about green energy and Net Zero.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdDo these people go on courses to teach them how to spout this rubbish? Jobs in the gas and oil industries, vehicle production, manufacturing and elsewhere are being sacrificed as politicians prostrate themselves before the Green God Net Zero and throw billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at him.
Time for all Unions to combine and get rid of the green blobs who are haemorrhaging jobs and reducing the UK to an economic wilderness.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow
Taking attendance
MSPs have duty to attend Holyrood for statements and debates. The hours of sittings are not onerous. Yet some high profile MSPs have had long absences from the chamber, according to Holyrood’s own records. Writing one’s memoirs or campaigning about (reserved) foreign policy issues are no valid reason for neglecting their handsomely paid duties.
This has attracted criticism from members of the public, who pay MSPs’ salaries. Now it seems that records of MSPs’ attendance in the chamber are no longer to be published, allegedly to protect MSPs’ safety.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdI may be slow on the uptake, so perhaps someone can kindly explain how publishing MSPs’ attendance records, which axiomatically refer to past events, can possibly endanger MSPs’ safety?
It may be, of course, that long time absentees are merely confirming, by their absence, that Holyrood is really a rather pointless talking shop.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh
Selective honesty
Viceroy Murray suggests “maybe people don't like honesty after all”, as his response to polling for his UK Labour Party in Scotland plunging.
Does giving folk a strong indication that WASPI women will be compensated, before the election, then reneging on that promise indicate honesty? Does promising to support Grangemouth then letting things slide indicate honesty? Or what about managing to not include their intention to take the Winter Fuel Payment from the vast majority of state pensioners in their manifesto, but then doing it as an immediate action after election indicate honesty? That last one came in far too fast for anyone to believe it wasn't one of their pre-planned actions.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMethinks the UK Labour leader in Scotland has become somewhat selective about which version of "honesty" he thinks we should accept.
Ian Waugh, Dumfries & Galloway
Write to The Scotsman
We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.