Letters to the editor

OPINION:

An unfair picture of Scotland

The article by Tom Gallagher (“Scotland’s Huey Long,” Commentary, Monday) neither reflected the reality of modern-day Scotland and the Scottish government, nor the nature of the recent Scotland Week celebrations in the United States.

The Scottish government aspires to independence and equality for Scotland. It is committed to a civic and inclusive definition of “Scottishness,” reflecting the fact that Scotland’s Muslim population and other minority ethnic communities are part and parcel of Scottish society.Past and present administrations in Scotland have chosen to positively celebrate that diversity as a key aspect of our national identity.

The fact that the governing party in Scotland opposed the invasion of Iraq is a matter of record — a position now shared by a very substantial body of opinion in the United States.

In terms of Scotland Week, it was a huge opportunity to promote Scotland’s economic interests in the United States, and we communicated with a broad range of businesses and potential investors, as well as the U.S. media and academia. Indeed, such was the level of interest in events addressed by First Minister Alex Salmond that there was no room to accommodate everyone who turned up.

The main focus of our engagement was to promote the many sectors in which Scotland has real competitive advantage — for example, in energy, in life sciences, in financial services and in the strength of our universities, which are educating more and more of our young people to the highest standards.

The celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Senate’s Tartan Day Resolution showed the extensive connections between Scotland and the United States — past, present and future.

With all three presidential candidates sending messages of support for the Tartan Day and Scotland Week celebrations — plus the official proclamation issued by President Bush — it emphasized the strength and depth of the bonds between Scotland and America, which we look forward to building on in the months and years ahead.

ROBIN NAYSMITH

Scottish government counsellor, North America

British Embassy

Washington

•

As a Scot, I was outraged to read Tom Gallagher’s article. Indeed, when I sent a link to the story round my office (we are an independent company providing Scottish parliamentary research), the response from everyone was one of sheer disbelief — even from those who are no fans of Alex Salmond.

I am unsure where Mr. Gallagher gets his information, but I would guess he certainly hasn’t visited Scotland recently, as the picture he painted of the country in which I have spent almost 23 years of my life was certainly wide off the mark to the reality of living in Scotland now.

I felt that comparing Scotland to the “old East Germany” was completely uncalled for and unfair, as were claims that Mr. Salmond courts extremist leaders. In this case, the reality is actually the complete opposite — the Scottish government is actually working with Muslim leaders of the nonextremist kind to look at practical ways to approach tackling the threat of terrorism and extremism. These efforts far exceed those of Westminster and the previous administration in Scotland.

My colleagues and I were also worried about the accusation that a Muslim extremist is apparently “a close adviser to Mr. Salmond.” This is news to us. Perhaps he should not make such damaging allegations without naming names and providing firm evidence to back them up.

Much to my further dismay, the article also informed readers of Scotland’s alleged “crumbling social fabric.” I found this to be deeply upsetting — not to mention untrue. Yes, we have our problems. But to describe our society as “crumbling” is a downright disgrace.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but in general, cities and towns in Scotland are friendly places with people who want to make newcomers and tourist feel at home and involved.

It is unfortunate that The Washington Times felt the need to print such an article, as many people in the United States feel a connection with Scotland and it would be terrible for these people to believe the country is facing Soviet-regime-style times when there is absolutely no truth in it whatsoever.

In fact, the mood in Scotland is the happiest and most optimistic it has ever been in my lifetime. The bad times for us were in the 1980s, not now.

In Britain, if a newspaper published an article as biased as Mr. Gallagher’s, the other side would be entitled to a right of reply. I think in this case, the whole of Scotland deserves one.

LYNNE WHITELAW

Edinburgh, Scotland

A contract is a contract

While Donna Brazile may be well-informed, it is obvious, after reading her column, “Fueling a subprime inferno” (Commentary, Monday), that she is seeing the mortgage crisis through dogma-tainted glasses that leave her shortsighted.

Miss Brazile uses an incomplete analogy to point blame at those who do not acquiesce to knee-jerk reactions that are ill-considered and dangerous in their precedent. She starts out by coaxing the reader to imagine a wildfire and all of the horrors associated with an engulfing inferno. The point that she conveniently leaves out is how that fire got started. Now, if she added the part about an irresponsible backyard brush burner, drunk from drawing equity and clearing land that he really wasn’t entitled to, she would be on the mark.

She then goes on to claim an opportunity was lost by not allowing judges to reinterpret mortgage agreements at will. That is an idea that is unprecedented and for good reason. A contract is the basic building block of business transactions, an agreement that our free-market economy is based upon. To compromise the integrity of a mutually agreed upon contract because one party cannot live up to its commitment undermines our entire economic (and legal) system.

She cites the Center for Responsible Lending as if it were an unbiased source when, in fact, it advertises itself as being “dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth.” While they are obviously partial and promoting the notion that all “at-risk” mortgage holders are victims rather than causes of the crisis, they are less than forthcoming in their contention that the “missed opportunity” would not cost taxpayers. What they fail to mention is that the plan would do irreparable harm to consumers who, for the most (actually entire) part, are taxpayers. Because the consequences of such a plan would not be paid for with tax revenue does not necessarily mean that it would not cost taxpayers.

If Miss Brazile wants to conjure analogies to the subprime fiasco, perhaps she should consider ones more appropriate to the repercussions of her reckless recommendations. Her advocacy reminds me of the words of that great philosopher John Lennon, who imparted, “Picture yourself in a boat on a river,” only in this case the river is Styx.

RICHARD BUSHWAY

Alexandria

Considering oil options

Michael Pravica argues that our efforts at nation building have been a failure and that we should instead “focus on rebuilding our own collapsing nation ” (“Nation building,” Letters, Wednesday). While that may sound desirable, it doesn’t compute. The world is now too small.

Since Sept. 11, it has become obvious that a nation in chaos could quickly become a home for the likes of al Qaeda and could become a threat to not only the United States, but to every other nation.

This is, of course, exacerbated by troubled nations in the Middle East, where terrorism or brutal dictators might shut off our access to oil, which would quickly lead to our economic collapse. In that case, the United States, (or any modern nation) might feel forced to take actions that, by comparison, dwarf our actions in Iraq.

Our congressional leaders are not helpful. They rule out the possibility of drilling for oil along our own coast, or in the Arctic, and at the same time push their position to ignore those nations that are in chaos or that threaten our survival.

DENIS ABLES

Vienna