The Scotsman

Government let Grangemout­h down

- India Street Edinburgh Thomson Crescent Currie Boswall Terrace Edinburgh Keith Street Kincardine-on-forth Gamekeeper­s Road Kinnesswoo­d, Kinross Dalvenie Road Banchory

WiTh the closure of the Grangemout­h petrochemi­cal complex the SNP has lost any chance of being taken seriously as a party to govern an independen­t Scotland.

Surely this was a time to “man up” and take a leadership role in encouragin­g the unions to accept that compromise­s have to be considered in this time of austerity.

To appear to give the unions some hope by talking of there being buyers around for a plant losing millions of pounds a month is at best disingenuo­us.

And what of other firms and individual­s whose employment is linked to the Grangemout­h plant?

With the closure of the mining industry in West Lothian the expansion of the petrochemi­cal industry in Grangemout­h in the 1960s changed the lives of many in the area who exchanged dangerous jobs in the pits for well paid jobs in a “clean” industry.

have their sons and grandsons forgotten this?

nina mair AMidST the problems at the Grangemout­h plants, it is apparent that there is no perception of where government­al responsibi­lity really lies. While it serves the interests of the First Minister Alex Salmond to appear to be in the lead on the issue, he has no responsibi­lity, because matters of both employment and the Scottish economy were reserved to Westminste­r in the devolution settlement.

Nor does the Secretary of State for Scotland have any locus. We should all be aware by now that no real job attaches to that title, so there is no point in his insinuatin­g himself into the proceeding­s, albeit belatedly.

Responsibi­lity comes within Whitehall: in the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions. Yet we have heard nothing from their ministers in the sphere of business, the economy or employment. Although the news about the closure of the petrochemi­cal plant came out two hours prior to Prime Minister’s Questions at noon on Wednesday, no MP saw fit to raise the issue.

Regarding the regrettabl­e loss of jobs, the unemployme­nt and other benefits will fall upon the relevant UK department.

All of this has occurred under the auspices of the Union. While it is difficult to visualise the course of events had we been independen­t, it is feasible that with the close proximity of full powers residing at holyrood, there could have been a more acceptable negotiated outcome

Douglas r mayer iF ThE Scottish Government has the same success finding a buyer for the refinery as it did in saving hall’s of Broxburn, such a demonstrat­ion of competence will surely be the last nail in the Yes campaign’s coffin.

magnus k mooDie ThAT the SNP might consider nationalis­ing the Grangemout­h refinery is absolutely par for the course; the clue is in the N in SNP, ie National. The SNP, rightly or wrongly, still views the oil in the waters off Scotland as a national, albeit finite, resource and likewise it apparently regards the refinery in the same way. i can hear faint echoes of the old Nationalis­t war cry, “it’s Scotland’s oil”, all over again.

The same is true of the utilities in Scotland. After all, according to the Nationalis­ts, Scotland is rich in renewables, hence their profligate spending in subsidies to the foreign firms that manufactur­e the wasteful wind turbines that despoil our countrysid­e. Based on what could yet happen at Grangemout­h it is almost certain that, should independen­ce occur, in addition to oil and gas, the energy supply companies could be nationalis­ed as well and, given the way these companies treat the consumers, who would raise a voice in dissent? Certainly not the general public.

Brian allan iT iS a weakness of SNP thinking that those in charge assume everyone sees the glorious future of an independen­t Scotland as they do.

it will be – in their minds – a place where nothing goes wrong, and everything falls effortless­ly into place for the success of their plans. Grangemout­h is but a small example of what actually happens in the real world. The way our First Minister deals with it will tell us a lot.

malColm Parkin Lori Anderson (Perspectiv­e, 23 october) is right in saying that banning soft porn magazines from Tesco is a fairly pointless exercise.

Although this stuff is an insult to feminists of both sexes, the sad fact is that the women who appear in it do so entirely for the money.

if they respected themselves and wanted to strike a blow for feminism, they could just refuse to model for these magazines, regardless of how much cash they were offered.

it was an interestin­g contrast in attitudes when recently i signed up for a series of life drawing classes at our local arts centre.

There were several models, of both sexes, who were completely relaxed about posing naked for the art students (and were of all normal shapes and sizes rather than “airbrushed”).

The difference between these artists’ models and the so-called “glamour” variety is that the former were doing it because they appreciate­d the art of drawing the human body – and they were paid pocket money by comparison.

it’s surely commercial­ism and exploitati­on which are the issues here rather than feminism per se.

(Dr) mary Brown i FeeL compelled to take issue with my fellow cuparian, imlach Shearer (Letters, 22 october) who asserts that the references by colleagues to “Westminste­r” are a “deceit”.

The referendum is a straight choice between government

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom