Dear Gail
I agree with you Gail that the motion does encapsulate everything that the Comhairle and the OHTG have been lobbying for. Sadly, this morning on Radio nan Gaidheal I learnt two things:
The first, via an interview given by MSP Alasdair Allan, was that the Government intend amending the Motion and presenting the case for a 50 per cent increase as “major progress”. In so doing, ignoring the case you and the Comhairle have made for a moratorium until after the analysis is carried out. This illustrates what some of our political representatives have been doing, fobbing us all off with platitudes and doing Edinburgh’s bidding. And what can I say about the embarrassment of a letter from our MSP to Keith Brown that you copied us into last night…..
The second, more alarming thing I learnt was that certain BBC employees will faithfully use propaganda from the SNP as if it were truth. Today the gaelic presenter Shona Henderson said, and I translate “…the Labour Party had campaigned against RET….” This is a bare faced untruth for which no evidence exists. But it does exist in the lexicon of SNP propaganda and is now repeated by a few in the BBC. Sadly from past experience I know it’s pointless to call the Gaelic department of the BBC in Inverness – because they are always right and are incapable of error.
Incidentally – Norman MacAskill did, despite Ms Henderson’s best efforts, convey exactly what the OHTG stands for and more importantly what all reasonable people in the islands want. Keep up the good work and do not allow those that are opposed to commonsense prevailing to turn this critical issue into a “them versus us “ political football.
Regards,
DJ Macsween
Here is your evidence DJ Macsween.
26/01/1999 – Scottish Transport Minister Calum Macdonald MP (Labour/Western Isles)
“”Road Equivalent Tariff is not a system we favour generally because there are winners and losers depending on the length of the route.”
I also remember distinctly in 2007 the Labour campaign advocating that a 40% fare reduction (foot passengers only) was much better than RET.
Re – Ruairidh Moir
Think if you look at it in context, there is no doubt that Calum MacDonald’s statement is undoubtedly true.
Shetland, in particular, would have lost from it. There were other communities, such as Islay, the islands of the Firth of Clyde, and Orkney which might have gained if the scheme had been introduced fairly across Scotland.
There is a world of difference between making a factual statement and ‘campaigniing’ against something. Pity some can’t tell the difference.
Re – William
All parties are campaigning. It’s what parliamentary democracy is all about.
But if your strongest piece of evidence for your case is found in January 1999, it’s clearly a very weak argument. Calum MacDonald’s words are simply factual.Some islands – like Orkney and Islay – benefit from RET. Others like Shetland don’t. The trouble with RET going largely to the Western Isles was that it was designed mainly for the benefit of the SNP.
Now, even they can’t afford it any more.
Re William
Surely even you don’t believe that last sentence. There’s one born every minute if you do. It’s clear to everyone outside the Western Isles that one of the major reasons RET was cut for hauliers is that the Scottish Government is now coming under increasing pressure from Orkney to get a similar scheme from Scrabster to Stromness etc. You can read the Orcadian for evidence if you like. The story about the hauliers being slow to pass on any savings is just a poor excuse!
Re – William
Apart from the words ‘tosh’, ‘a load of rubbish’ and three exclamation marks, have you provided a single point of evidence for your point of view?
Surely it’s time you started practicing what you preach. Did you even examine the truth of my claims that there is a great deal of unhappiness in, say, Orkney and Islay about the fact that over the last few years RET has gone to help the SNP win the Western Isles?