Help! Cages are rattling and flack is flying. Accusations of “ludicrous article” and “concentrated abuse” one week and “gratuitous nonsense” the next. (Letters October 31/November 7)
Whatever now I wonder? Better look out the tin helmet, just in case!
Never mind, bent it may be but my back is broad and just to put the record straight Mr Anders, I am not anti-EU as an economic union - which is why I voted in favour of continued membership of the EEC back in the 70’s referendum. What I certainly did not vote for was a loss of sovereignty to a meddlesome, monolithic bureaucracy - totally unaccountable and over which we have little control or influence. I have always maintained it is impossible to throw such a wide variety of disparate cultures and customs into the Euro-pot, stir it up with a large spoonful of optimism and hope for success. Trade as one? Yes. Live in peace and harmony? Definitely. Allow freedom of movement? Within reason. But turn us all into grey Euro-clones? No thank you very much.
And yes, I am miffed about ridiculous nit-picking EU rulings, like the unnecessary gadget for my car, that has little or no real safety value and has cost over £100 to fix. The cynic in me has to wonder how many EU gravy-train passengers are benefiting from “insider” information on companies making headlamp washer-pumps (amongst many other things). I gather there has been “quite a demand” lately!
I’m inclined to agree with Mr Anders cake analogy but he curiously omitted the politicians from his ‘carve up.’ Surely they are ultimately to blame for allowing the banking scandal to fester in the first instance? But I guess they were far too busy cutting up their own slices! Speaking of which, I see seven former MPs who lost their seats after the expenses scandal – five labour and two lib-dems, have been re-selected by their parties to contest seats in next year’s general election. Scandalous! Let’s hope voters have better memories than party leaders.
But enough of this frivolity, did you read about the heavily censored letters concerning Edinburgh Zoo’s prospectively-parenting pandas? Apparently they were asked – the Scottish government that is not the pandas, to disclose letters mentioning them – the pandas not the government, in the six months leading up to their arrival and in the past six months. When the letters arrived – after a request from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland they were found to have been so heavily redacted as to have had virtually every word blacked out.. When questioned, the Scottish government insisted they had not withheld any information requested and that the specific question only asked about discussions about pandas. Ah, so the letters did contain discussion on other matters Mr Salmond?
Not for me to speculate of course, but could this mean he was taking advice on the construction of a large wall in the event of a yes vote? Ah so!