Letters / The purple and peach ballot paper
As the election campaign intensifies, it becomes increasingly clear that voters should note that it is being fought on two battlegrounds.
One gives us the opportunity to endorse the policies and records of anyone of 15 parties plus two independents, or even to follow steadfastly in the footsteps of our forefathers.
The other gives us the opportunity to elect the one individual who has demonstrated the best ability and desire to fight for our community; the one who presents the clearest, well thought out detailed plans; the one whose campaign has been positive, concentrating on what he/she will do rather than wasting time, energy and space talking about other candidates.
As a lifelong Liberal (and LibDem) I have been bitterly disappointed by their campaign. It seems to have been prepared with a negative bias with leaflets devoting far too much space to opposition candidates.
If I wanted to make a protest vote, then it would go to the Green candidate not to the LibDems. The promises are to continue campaigning for all the obvious (albeit important) targets just like everyone else, but with no real substance to give them credence.
To be fair, the LibDems in Holyrood have supported local issues during the life of the last parliament but with the sort of limited success that a voice in the wilderness brings.
Perhaps the one thing more than anything else that has persuaded me to change my allegiance has been Emma Macdonald’s apparent standpoint that (to paraphrase) ‘it wasn’t her fault, she wasn’t there at the time and it’s someone else’s problem or decision’.
One example, from July 2024, illustrates why I would be concerned if our council leader was elected to speak on behalf of her constituents in Holyrood.
Following much concern raised by a number of residents over the proximity of Viking Energy turbines to their properties and the adverse effect that the accompanying noise pollution has had on their mental and physical welfare, they looked for some sort of help or, at the very least, support as their health suffered, houses lost value and some residents having to take the heartbreaking decision to move away from their family homes.
Emma Macdonald’s crumbs of comfort included the following extracts from The Shetland Times (05.07.2024): “Whether someone lives alongside the windfarm or not is a matter of personal choice…….this has been a traumatic time for some but it is not a matter she had any say over. When I came on to the council it was already a done thing…….I understand it must be difficult (for some) but I’m not that close that I can hear them (the turbines).”
The crassness of that statement smacks of ‘I’m alright Jack’ and of washing her hands of the whole thing rather than at least putting up a fight and speaking out on behalf of those not in such a fortunate position as herself.
This, and other similar scenarios, prevent me from putting my faith, trust and confidence in Emma Macdonald to be a powerful voice for Shetland.
I do not subscribe to Scottish independence and I’m unlikely to vote SNP on the peach ballot paper.
However, I’m mindful that the purple ballot paper gives me the opportunity to vote for the person that has consistently impressed me with her clarity, sense of purpose, well thought out plans, fresh innovative ideas and her confident standing.
I can’t subscribe to the cynical view that Hannah Mary Goodlad can’t be trusted because of perceived concepts about her party. I will vote for Hannah Mary because I like what she says and I appreciate her positive campaign.
In my view, she deserves the opportunity to prove herself and to be as good as her words.
I won’t condemn her with prejudice without giving her a chance and I don’t believe that this represents a vote for independence, as this does not lie within the purview of HMG, John Swinney or the SNP, but with the people of Scotland if and when there is another referendum.
I have another vote in five years’ time which has to be earned.
Michael Bennett
Sandsound
