Ed’s bold move snubs Scottish opinion
I care about people in Motherwell, Manchester and Malaga but that doesn’t mean I want to be governed from Madrid.
Mary Thomas
Watson Crescent
Edinburgh
THE “Labour leader’s bold move to wrest Disraeli’s legacy from the Conservatives” is a further step to the right in an attempt to win key marginal seats in England but a slap in the face for the working people of Scotland.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAt a public meeting about independence I had the opportunity to ask the Scottish Conservative David McLetchie whether he agreed with the Labour policy of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States on Nato and its policy of first-strike nuclear weapons to defend the Anglo-American model of a deregulated free market, which I believe has led both nations to have the widest gap between rich and poor of all countries in the developed world. His answer was yes. So now we know why the Scottish Labour Party is obliged to support the Tory “no vote” on independence.
Ray Newton
Buckstone Way
Edinburgh
Opposition politicians have the luxury of criticising those in power, and Ed Miliband was no exception as he gave his keynote speech to the Labour Party conference in Manchester, not only attacking David Cameron but also the SNP government at Holyrood.
Criticism comes easy, but it can come back to bite you as Johann Lamont discovered this week when Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson gave her approval to Ms Lamont’s criticism of SNP policies on universal benefits.
Mr Miliband missed an opportunity to tell the country whether his vision and policies for government include the scrapping of universal benefits in his “one-nation party”.
Catriona C Clark
Hawthorn Drive
Falkirk
Johann Lamont told the Labour conference that “not everyone is going to like the policy prescriptions [she] is outlining”. Last week Scottish Labour leader Ms Lamont told us she didn’t have any policy prescriptions, she was merely “bravely” opening the debate.
So which is it? Does she know what her policies are or doesn’t she? If she does, let’s hear them.
If not, then perhaps she might want to begin the debate when she’s worked out what they are.
Michael Hance
Braehead
Bo’ness