Sir, There are two well-known sayings I am aware of.
One is: If you can, leave the world a better place than when I found it! The other: If it saves one life it will be well worth it!
In families where a bereavement (murder) has taken place, the families always state that their lives have been ruined and will never be the same again.
Yet it seems to me that the whole entertainment industry is based on murders taking place.
Programmes continually give us a diet of crime couples who kill, horror-channel, crimes that shook Britain, forensic detectives etc, etc, all from America, who had 11,000 murders last year.
These programmes must have an influence on vulnerable people and I am sure there will be an increase in murders in our country if they continue to be shown.
Good family life is the core to us having a good society.
The situation now is that families with children (who can be greatly influenced), can’t sit down together without being embarrassed when all these films and plays have warnings of extreme violence, bad language and sexual content. The watershed should be moved to 2200hrs for the sake of our young children.
We need a political party to take a stand on this very serious subject.
John Connor. 10 David Henderson Court, Dunfermline.
Hard decisions to be made
Sir, Gordon Adam highlights a significant issue when he questions spending on Scotland’s NHS and its future post referendum (letters, June 18). However, his assertions regarding the Scottish Government’s reasons for current spending levels, and possible cuts whatever the result in September, are incorrect.
Current spending levels are a conscious decision to maintain the Scottish NHS as a publicly funded health care system, free at the point of delivery, as originally intended by its founders.
With the financial crash of 2008 and the subsequent squeeze on Scotland’s block grant, achieving this has essentially required the Scottish Government to “rob Peter to pay Paul”. That is one of the advantages of being in charge of your own destiny. You can choose to fund what is important to you.
However, a “no” vote in September will change all that. With massive further cuts to Scotland’s funding already earmarked, with much more being demanded by the likes of the Welsh administration and English local authorities, it will be impossible for a Scottish Government of any hue to maintain the NHS at current levels without unacceptable cuts to all other budgets.
A “yes” vote will not shield the NHS from financial realities. There will still have to be hard decisions made in the short term. However, with full control of all Scotland’s revenues and the economic powers necessary to grow the economy, independence will allow NHS spending to be prioritised without making the cuts to other budgets that would be necessary if it stays in the UK.
The choice is clear. If you want the NHS free at the point of delivery to be maintained, vote “yes”. If you want the NHS run down and privatised, vote “no”.
Stuart Allan. 8 Nelson Street, Dundee.
Is their past to be our future?
Sir, Michael Garty (letters, June 18) praises aspects of the ethos of Norway’s social and economic achievements and few would deny a high standard of living is enjoyed currently by Norwegians.
The point of my letter (June 12), overlooked in his reply, was a warning that the SNP idyll of a Norway for Scotland would need a doubling of average wages but would more than double the price of the basics of life. In addition, high social taxation and VAT etc. would further increase the cost of living for all except the very highest earners.
The economic years ahead to emulate Norway would be long and hard and I doubt if many Scots are willing to gamble their future in such a risky fashion.
Mr Garty claims that high wages will achieve next to zero unemployment but many economists would not agree with him. The SNP have admired many economies and nations during their quest for separation from the UK. First, praise for Iceland’s banking system then Eire (pre-2008) as a future model for Scotland.
We all remember how quickly they were forgotten. Are we to accept their failed forecasts of the past as a guarantee for our Scottish future?
Angus Brown. The Orchard, Longforgan, Dundee.
Political skull-duggery afoot?
Sir, The unfortunate clash at the end of June to commemorate Armed Forces Day and the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn at the same time could have been avoided.
The decision to hold the Bannockburn event was taken long before an application by the Labour/Tory cabal within Stirling Council to have Armed Forces Day held in the city was put to Westminster behind the backs of the SNP council members.
Given that this year’s Armed Forces Day was supposed to primarily honour the Navy it seems very strange indeed that the privilege to hold the event was denied to the naval town of Portsmouth in favour of landlocked Stirling.
Not much imagination is required to realise that underhand politics is at work here with the unholy alliance of the Better Together parties employing yet more desperate measures to sabotage the possibility of a “yes” vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Strange, too, that Westminster is part-funding the “free to attend” Armed Forces Day event whereas the Bannockburn celebration has to be funded by ticket sales.
There is more than a whiff of political skullduggery in the air.
Allan MacDougall. 37 Forth Park, Bridge of Allan.