Sir, The intimidation and bullying of Scots from the “Better Together” supporters and their political allies will go on unabated until the referendum.
Is it that those who intend voting to stay within the union must have a reason to do so? Possibly protecting their own interests in the London stock market?
The same “no” voters also seem quite happy to tag along with the politics of London and accept what unionist politicians are meting out to the public through privatisation of the NHS and punishing taxes that are hitting those unfortunates, and the poor, who have contributed to the coffers of London for many years.
The latest twist on the road to the Scottish referendum is the announcement of the new oilfield off Shetland that will provide thousands of jobs for the oil sector.
This announcement was immediately seized on by our “Government Londoneers” (no insult intended to members of the public who reside there), claiming that the oil produced would enhance the finances of the UK.
Is it not bad enough to bully the Scots and pit Englishman against Scot over the BAE issue, let alone steal what is rightfully another country’s assets yet again through a right wing agenda that has been adopted by a unionist government over many years?
It is also interesting to note that BAE systems have many overseas interests, employing 88,000 in various parts of the world.
Being born in England (not far from Portsmouth) and being ex-RN I am appalled at the way both countries have been treated by our Westminster “leaders”.
Bob Harper. 63a Pittenweem Road, Anstruther.
Can males claim too?
Sir, Three female RAF recruits have been awarded £100,000 each for injuries sustained while marching alongside taller male colleagues. They claimed this caused them to over-stretch and develop spinal and pelvic injuries.
Can vertically challenged males now make a similar claim for compensation, or am I missing something here?
Dan Arnott. St Brycedale Court, Kirkcaldy.
We will be in trouble . . .
Sir, Clark Cross (Letters, November 23) correctly points out that immigration as a means of curing Scotland’s state pension problem can’t work if those immigrants themselves eventually have to be paid a pension, which can only be achieved by further immigration, then so on indefinitely.
Such an idea is based on the crackpot mathematical extensions of pyramid schemes and would eventually require everyone in the world to work in Scotland.
If this is an example of SNP economic thinking, then we really are in trouble.
Malcolm Parkin. 15 Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.
The wrong approach
Sir, Your item on Nablus Avenue, a street clearly named in sympathy with the Palestinians, (Courier, November 22), illustrates a one-sided approach to a complex issue that requires compromise from both sides if peace is to be achieved.
Israel seeks a two-state solution. Negotiations with Fatah, governing the West Bank, are in process. Hamas, governing Gaza, takes a different approach. The destruction of Israel is written into its constitution. Peace will be achieved only when there is no more Israel.
Israel was established by the UN in 1947. At the time, the Palestinians refused the offer of their own state as they have done consistently from before the time of the Peel Commission in 1937.
People of goodwill seeking an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, will refrain from inciting support for aggression from either side.
Nablus, in the West Bank, is of suicide-bomber fame, and the street name, Nablus Avenue, implying support for Palestinian aggression will be lauded by those seeking the conflict to continue.
Andrew Lawson. 9 MacLaren Gardens, Dundee.
Parking ticket profiteering
Sir, I live in Whitby, North Yorkshire, and was interested to read your recent article about dodgy parking tickets issued on private retail car parks.
I am currently running a campaign to get more regulation to control these people, to stop the blatant profiteering practices and arrogant “above the law” attitude.
The first thing I would say is, do not ignore these tickets. They may form the basis of a court action a few years further down the line and you will lose if you cannot put a reasonable case, then have to pay if the court orders you to.
It is best to respond, offering a realistic amount to cover whatever they may have lost based upon the length of your overstay. They will refuse, so if it comes to court eventually you can show you have tried to compromise.
Of course, if the ticket is out of order and should never have been issued, just tell them so and make a careful note of all details, time, place, all circumstances etc, receipt, was the car park full/empty, what the tariff is and keep the details safe!
The campaign I am running is to ban the private parking fine scam and a petition to reform Schedule 4 of POFA can be viewed and signed at:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/55493
Keith Dixon. 30 Mulgrave Road, Whitby.