Independence in tatters, the chaos of PR and an inability to run the rail
In Metrotalk: readers react to the resignation of the Scottish first minister and can Britain run its own railways?
In today’s MetroTalk, readers weigh in on Humza Yousaf’s resignation as Scotland’s first minister, as his departure leaves Scottish parliament in chaos.Could it derail any hopes of Scottish independence?
Meanwhile, are those who bemoan nationalising Britain’s railways admitting we’re unable to run our own trains? And, readers wonder whether Labour will be at the mercy of union bosses if their plan goes ahead.
And, readers share their thoughts on Ireland’s desire to change the law so that they send asylum seekers back to the UK.
Share what you think about these topics and more in the comments
Is Scottish independence in tatters?
Humza Yousaf – who has resigned as Scotland’s first minister after little more than a year in post – has damaged the cause of Scottish independence with his questionable policies on certain issues (Metro, Tue).
It is an early end to what was a promising career. He and his predecessors, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond, were so close to their stated goal of nationhood, which is surely now in tatters. Dominic Shelmerdine, London
Is the Chaos in Scottish parliament because of PR?
The chaos in the Scottish parliament shows why proportional representation voting – the mixed member form of which is employed at Holyrood – doesn’t work.
It gives minority parties, such as the Greens (which was the minority partner in a coalition with Mr Yousaf’s SNP) too much say in the running of the country.
It’s worth remembering that the Greens got just under five per cent of the vote at the last election (which translated as eight of the 129 available seats).
It’s totally undemocratic that a party with such a small vote had a say in government policy. T, Glasgow
That was then, this is now
John (MetroTalk, Tue) opposes Labour’s plans to renationalise the railways because the publicly owned British Rail was a disaster saved only by the private sector.
Why assume nationalising railways would be a disaster because it had issues decades ago?
And doesn’t it rather contradict the message from the government – and other Brexit supporters – by admitting we can’t manage a railway and need foreign help in the way of privatisation? Joe, London
The issue with the railways
People seem to have forgotten how bad British Rail was and seem to look back at it with rose-tinted glasses. The improvement to rail services does not lie with privatisation or nationalisation – it lies with accountability. And I mean actual accountability – not the pretend accountability we currently have.
Delay Repay – where travellers are compensated for late running services – means nothing because all the money the train companies pay out for this they get back from the government.
Under-performance, meanwhile, is just greeted with ‘oh well’, while the majority of staff treat passengers like dirt.
Rail companies care about profit, staff care about how much they can get paid at the expense of ever-rising ticket prices, the government cares about votes and no one cares about the passengers and they are the ones paying for rail companies. This needs to change. The passengers need to be put first.
It’s only because rail companies have a captive audience that they get away with treating customers so badly. Emily, Chichester
Robert (MetroTalk, Mon) is in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that Labour ‘working hand in hand with unions’ will prevent strikes.
If they give in to one inflated wage demand then the rest will follow suit and go on strike if their demands are not met. A merry-go-round. And where is the golden money tree that’s going to pay for keeping the unions happy? Tom, Hertfordshire
The board says it all
With reference to Billie’s comment (MetroTalk, Tue) about the need for some kind of indication that the arriving train carriage is already full.
Well, if you are travelling at rush hour in London (which seems like all the time now), and you see five or six minutes on the arrivals board, your head drops because you know what’s coming.
Anywhere else that is happy days. But not in the big smoke. Dec, Essex
Who’d have thought it? EU wants to return asylum seekers to UK
Irish deputy PM Micheál Martin says asylum seekers are crossing from
Northern Ireland because they fear being sent to Rwanda.
Ireland is now seeking to change the law so it can return migrants to the UK after its Supreme Court said the UK was not a ‘safe country’ because of its Rwanda scheme.
It’s ironically interesting and telling that a EU member is antagonised by the volume of asylum seekers entering via the UK and that they are looking to
pass legislation to designate the UK a safe country that would allow Ireland to
repatriate said asylum seekers without having their claims assessed in Ireland.
This, all the while totally ignoring the fact the same (wider) EU will not allow
the UK to repatriate (possibly the same) asylum seekers to France who travelled
through France on their way to the UK and crossed the Channel in boats that
originated in France.
Perhaps the UK should extract millions of pounds annually from Ireland to pay for additional border patrols on our side of the Ireland/UK border? Pete, Cheam
Interesting that Ireland want us to take back asylum seekers from the UK.
Does this mean that we can do what we should have done with those coming
from France? It’s the same EU, no? Jim, London
MORE : How the seeds of Humza Yousaf’s downfall were sown before he became Scotland’s leader
MORE : Scottish government on verge of collapse
MORE : Scottish First Minister quits as leader after less than eight Liz Trusses