letters – Page 38 – The NEN – North Edinburgh News

Letter: Offensive, Darling – bitter together

Dear Editor

I find it offensive that Alister Darling thinks that Scotland is not capable of self-government or of being a nation with full powers. How come small nations similar to Scotland can gain their independence and be successful, look after their people and economy without their neighbours ?

Lets look at what “Better Together ” has really done for Scotland. It has destroyed coal mining and ship building . It has given away our forests to the highest bidder,and our fisheries were sold down the river. Our whisky is taxed to the hilt . Gas, electricity,water and now the Royal Mail have all been privatised,but not for the benefit of ordinary people. Our hospitals ,schools and care homes can’t cope because budgets are cut year in, year out .

Scotland’s oil has been squandered to the extent that Mr Darling and his ilk say it’s running out, yet we are assured by experts there are still ample oil reserves. Denis Healey admitted to the people of Scotland that they were lied to in the 1970s about the oil supply running out then. New oil fields are being opened daily , weekly, monthly.

Under “Better Together ” Scotland has nothing – it all goes to Westminster! Our old , young unemployed , disabled , vulnerable are being driven into deeper poverty by a ‘better together’ UK Great Britain, whether you are a Tory, Labour or Lib/Dem.

As for George Osbourne telling the Scottish nation that should we get independence we would not be able to use the pound sterling? Have any Scottish people tried to exchange Scottish monetary notes in England ? It’s near impossible!

Another myth is having to use a Scottish passport to travel to England? Passports are not required to travel to the Republic of Eire. Yes identification is required but not necessary a passport.

As for defence Better Together have used their savage cuts to the MOD therefore Scotland has seen their regiments disappear. Teresa May’s recent comment that Scotland would be a target for terrorism. Scotland has been attacked once . We are more than capable of defending our country. How many times has England been attacked? Go back to the 1970s and as recent as the London bombings in 2012.

Any other nations who have gained their independence have never asked to be returned to their original countries.If the people of Scotland want more welfare cuts, ruled from Westminster, job losses, and unfair treatment of our nation , then I dare you never to be poor, ill, young, unemployed or old.

The Better Together campaign are scaremongering our nation. Scottish people have to realise that in the referendum we are NOT voting for any political party but to have the right to rule our own country . All I have heard from political parties has been the back stabbing of Alex Salmond for suggesting we can achieve independence . Joanne Lamont is one of the worst offenders. Having listen to her at the Labour Party Conference she put down Alex Salmond 23 times . ” Better Together “? More like “Bitter Together!”

Finally just to inform people I do NOT vote SNP – however I do want independence.

Stand up, Scotland and be a proud nation!

Anna Hutchison (by email)

Letter: Time, gentlemen, please

Dear Editor

People over decades have had to struggle very hard to get an increase in wages; the employers, when faced with a determined workforce, do eventually make some concessions.

The one thing they strongly resist is a reduction in working hours: the weekly wage they pay has bought your ‘time’, and the more work that can be had from that ‘time’ the greater amount pf profit can be made, whereas any increase in the wage bill can be clawed back in rising prices.

Development in technology over the decades has meant more can be produced using fewer people, so the logical thing to do was to reduce the working week/year so that all could benefit – but no way would the employers reduce working hours: your ‘time’ was paid for by the weekly wage.

Now in the 21st century the employers are taking things further, embracing zero contracts where your ‘time’ is now on-call as and when needed, your ‘time’ that is left is not their concern as it is unpaid but remains tied to their needs. How close is this to serfdom or tied slavery?

Think about it. Today the call is for everybody to work harder and longer. Where, how and why? And for whose benefit?

Further, in spite of the nation’s will to finance national schemes to help those who are unemployed, sick or disabled in their time of need, this Tory/Lib government have planned to make them work for nothing or lose benefit.

Imagine the delight of some employers, having this pool of free labour available! Perhaps you may think it wouldn’t happen, but maybe this Tory/Lib government would reinstate poor law relief officers dishing out food vouchers, etc. instead of benefit money. It would be in character!

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: public services paying the price

Dear Editor

Wage increases restricted to 1% maximum. Price increases averaging 3%, with gas, electricity and rail fares rising even more. This is not a one-off, it is a policy continuation over the last three years. Every working person is feeling the pinch, more so those on low incomes – in very many households the question of heating the home is decided by how much cold one can stand first.

Passing the cost of the colossal greed and mismanagement by the banks and financial institutions onto the people is bordering on criminal – especially as huge salaries and bonuses are still being paid to the people at the top, Their political supporters have been very busy making sure the people pay, but that is not enough for them.

They have also seized the chance to break up, privatise and destroy as many public services as possible – the very services, both local and national, that are needed more than ever. These services have been struggled for and paid for in taxation; they haven’t been given to us, this begs the question: how has the Tory/Lib government been able to do so much harm to so many?

First, any resistance had to be broken or diverted, pointing out people to blame, setting one section against another – those in work (‘hard workers’) against those out of work (‘layabouts’), people not on benefits against those on benefits (‘scroungers’), disabled people (‘shirkers’, or ‘work shy’). That so many people were taken in by these tales is a disaster, not only for the scapegoated but because every individual is under the same threat.

Emboldened by this success the Tory/Lib government felt confident enough to go even further and dictate how much space a hame needs (the ‘bedroom tax’) and in doing so giving the like-minded controllers licence to dictate, if on benefits, what people should or should not buy.

It is important every person listens very carefully to what is being told to them and why, and by defending others’ rights you defend your own.

The famous speech by Pastor Neimoller is really worth recalling:

First they came for the communists

And I did not speak out because I was not a communist

Then they came for the socialists

and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak for me.

Most people have one asset, the ability to work; when the opportunity to exercise this is denied it has disastrous consequences on individuals and families, made worse by destroying public services.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Social Profit

Dear Editor

The economic crisis was created by financial institutions and the banking systems, and they and their political supporters are now passing the cost onto the working population: cutting jobs, freezing wages and raising prices – causing widespread poverty and despair, not only in the UK but world-wide. This clearly shows their determination to protect themselves by any and all means.

All history shows that systems change: serfdom, feudalism, early capitalism, industrial capitalism to today’s financial capitalism. Each system in turn created problems they were unable to solve, but those who stood to gain most from the existing system strongly resisted any change.

The common factor of all these systems was that they were organised mainly for the benefit of the few. Today, the same is happening: financial capitalism moves money around the world to maximise their profits irrespective of the poverty created in country after country. As a system it can only operate in this way, engaging in what they call the ‘global race’ – this is fully backed by David Cameron.

A change of system is now needed, but it cannot be plucked off the shelf – effecting a change will involve everyone with ideas and determination to organise a social system to cater for the needs of all for life.

The NHS is one example of such social policies that can be ut into place, which everyone must defend alongside other social policies that exist. Social policies should include, for example: Rail, bus and air transport; gas electricity and oil suppliers, house building, care and security for the elderly and no privatising of schools.

Companies who own and control these indispensible industries operate for maximum profit at our expense: if operated socially it would bring about changes in the system.

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes View

Letters: Winners and losers of the global race

Dear Editor

The repeated use of certain words and phrases, for example ‘let me be clear’, ‘openness and transparency’, ‘hub’, ‘flat-lining’ are very irritating; and ‘we must win the global race’, often repeated by David Cameron and most Tory politicians, is both annoying and dangerous.

Dangerous; when the state of the world needs nations to work together to solve problems of food production, fuel and energy supplies, diseases, protection of the world’s forests and climate change.

Dangerous; because ‘winning the global race’ means there are losers, creating disastrous unemployment, poverty and health problems.

There are many examples of companies engaged in the ‘global race’, making vast profits in one country, closing industries in others, showing little concern for people’s’ lives and wellbeing. The ‘global race’ does not exclude the working people of the UK from this exploitation.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter: Pension Plan

Dear Editor

Sometimes one hasn’t a choice but I would expect everyone would wish to have a long and good life. To achieve both ‘long’ and ‘good’ requires reliable and steady employment and a society that is run for the benefit of all – this has been the aspiration of past generations of workers who struggled to improve their lives; we owe them our gratitude and respect.

The same applies to the pensioners of today, who in their time have striven to create better conditions for all of us. Now today’s generation must help, protect and care for their parents and grandparents whose welfare at the moment is under attack from a vicious reactionary government determined to undo all the social progress fought so hard for.

People who are working today are the pensioners of tomorrow and the government’s sights are firmly fixed on them – by playing the ‘divide and rule’ game, pitting one section of people against another, they hope to achieve their aims.

People working today must rally to support their parents and grandparents (the pensioners); this would then be their contribution to the ongoing struggle to achieve a society run for the benefit of all.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Government pushes ahead with Royal Mail sell-off

Queen of the privatisers Margaret Thatcher thought the better of doing it, then New Labour’s Peter Mandelson tried but failed to do it but now it seems that it’s going to be third time unlucky as the coalition government moves to sell off the Royal Mail … a national asset that belongs to all of us:

Business Secretary Vince Cable told MPs yesterday: “Now the time has come for government to step back from Royal Mail, allow its management to focus wholeheartedly on growing the business and planning for the future. It’s now time for employees to hold a stake in the company and share in its success. This government will give Royal Mail the real commercial freedom it’s needed for a long time.”

Around 150,000 staff will be offered free shares when Royal Mail – one of the world’s oldest postal services – is sold off. It’s expected that the company will be worth snywhere between £2.5 – 4 billion when it is floated on the stock market later this year

Mr Cable said privatisation was necessary to ensure that universal service, which currently guarantees delivery to all parts of the country six days a week, can continue. Th government also says that the sale will give Royal Mail the access to private capital it needs to grow and remain competitive.

Royal Mail is currently refocusing it’s business priorities, targetting parcel delivery to cash in on the rapid growth of internet shopping as the number of posted letters falls due to the explosion of email. This change of emphasis saw Royal Mail more than double its profits last year after years of losses.

Ed Davey, minister for postal affairs, said the proposals ‘safeguard the future of both Royal Mail and the Post Office – two cornerstones of British life’, but there are many who are question whether the sell-off is either desirable or necessary – and industrial action looks likely.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, said: “The fact of the matter is the British public don’t want to see the Royal Mail privatised. Vince Cable is flogging this company to the very people he denounced at the Liberal party conference – the spivs, the speculators and those who just want to make a fast buck.” He went on: “Royal Mail is thriving in public ownership, increasing its profits, providing good quality services and decent jobs. We want it to remain that way. Privatisation would be a throwback to the tired old politics of the 1980s.”

Dave Ward, CWU’s deputy general secretary, said he expected members to be balloted before the end of September. “We will be balloting for strike action, we’ve already adopted that policy. I expect that policy to be ratified by the conference of the union at the end of July. That’s about our members’ terms and conditions, I want to make that clear. It’s about what we fear will happen with Royal Mail as a private operator – what we want is a legal binding agreement that protects their terms and conditions, their contracts of employment, their pensions, for the foreseeable future.

“I don’t think our members will be bought off by the free share issue,” he added. “I believe our members are too long in the tooth not to know the dangers of privatisation.”

Speaking after the announcement North and Leith Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz said: The Government has nationalised Royal Mail’s liabilities in the form of the pension fund in which there was a large shortfall and is now intent on privatising the profits. It argues that it is necessary to subject Royal Mail to commercial discipline and give it access to private sector capital but Royal Mail’s overall operating profits more than doubled over the last year from £152m in 2011-12 to £403m in 2013-13!

“A privatised Royal Mail might continue to operate the universal service provision of delivering 6 days a week to anywhere in the UK for the same price but for how long if its commercial rivals don’t have to? As with the East Coast Main Line, ideology seems to have won out over common sense – it will be private investors who benefit from its commercial success not the taxpayer or customers.”

Letter: Warning – pensions under attack

Dear Editor

Pensioners of today and tomorrow, be aware: the government is laying the ground for further attacks on pensions and pensioners benefits.

First, they have to divide opposition, for example by saying they wish to be fair by stopping the wealthy getting the winter heating allowance. It sounds fine, but does that mean the introduction of a means test for everyone to qualify? And who sets the level?

Other benefits, such as travel passes, television licence and free medicine prescriptions – things to help pensioners maintain some quality of life – are threatened: the government is looking to see if the nation can ‘afford’ them.

The campaign of setting one section of people against another is well-prepared, with millions of words and pictures; every person working or retired is the target. Just a few figures:

31% of the population are of retiring age; not all get a full pension as many qualifying conditions apply
The government is raising the age of retirement for women from 60 to 65 by 2018 and for both men ad women to 66 by 2020, with increases to 67 and 68 later on
The ‘full’ state pension is only approximately one sixth of the average age
The amount paid out in pensions from the total wealth produced in one year is approximately 5%, yet the percentage of the population’s pensioners is 31% (and most have contributed to a pension scheme throughout their working lives).

Just two further points: today’s working population, who now produce all the nation’s wealth, were raised, loved and cared for by our pensioners. Today’s working population and pensioners combined have massive voting power: use it!

Tony Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Letter:Reality

Dear Editor

From and including the times of Thatcher there has been a steady campaign to depict the ‘working class’, 90% of the population, as uneducated, fairly lazy and undeserving. What is behind this campaign – such a sustained attack must have motives?

The 1other 10% of the population, the wealthy class, have always feared a united people striving for and getting major improvements to their lives and gaining control over decision-making; this, they had to stop. This unity had to be broken,

First they had to break any resistance by people’s organisations, launching a

vicious attack on the trade unions, following this by wholesale closing of industries, from shipbuilding, ports, coal mines, printing, car & aircraft production, steelworks etc, destroying scores of thousands of people’s lives.

What better method could there be to break this unity, by pitting one against another in a scramble for a job while at the same time propagating the possibility of individuals climbing up the ‘social ladder’ and becoming ‘middle class’!!

The 90%, if opportunities are available, have differing levels of skill, giving differing levels in quality of life, but nevertheless are still of the working class in which everyone depends on everyone else to maintain their quality of life. The 90%, have the values of decency and thoughtful caring in wanting society to be organised and run for the benefit of all.

The same cannot be said of the remaining 10%, their campaign of vilification of the working class goes on; the recent past and present times are witnesses of their intentions.

Tony Delahoy (by email)

Letter: Wealth and Power

Dear Editor

Have you ever wondered how the wealthy made their money in the past?

Do you think most of today’s wealthy got it through inheritance?

Do you agree that wealth gives rights of power, privilege and decision-making?

Interesting questions, worthy of some research – but how deep?

We ll know about the appalling exploitation and working conditions of men, woman and children who worked in mills, factories, coal mines and on the land, making vast fortunes for the owners. This in itself begs the question: how did these people become owners in the first place? Owners who were also law-makers, magistrates and lords of the manor to whom everyone had to defer.

Today, a great part of land is still in private hands, although landowners derive massive wealth from leasing.

The wealthy industrialists have now moved their money, mostly into speculative financial stocks and bonds both nationally and internationally; they still hold positions of power beyond ‘one person one vote’ and weald great influence on all aspects of our lives.

Despite these positions of strength, tremendous struggles throughout history by men and women in groups, organisations and as individuals have taken place – and will no doubt continue to change society and make it work for the good of all.

A Scottish miner was carrying home a brace of pheasants when he met the landowner, who told him that he owns the land and the pheasants are his too.

“Your land, eh?” asks the miner.

“Yes, and my pheasants”, replies the laird.

“And who did you get the land from?”

“Well, I inherited it from my father”

“And who did he get it from?” the miner insists.

“His father, of course! The land has been in my family for over 400 years!” the laird splutters.

“Okay, so how did your family come to own this land 400 years ago?”

“Well – well – they fought for it!”

“Fine@, replies the miner. “Take off your jacket and I’ll fight you for it now!”

Tony Delahoy, Silverknowes Gardens