Obama’s dreadful
error about the
‘Polish death camps’
Andrew Sanders
I am, much as Mr Jardine is, far from a fan of Ryanair (28 February). As a particularly tall person, their new policy of charging people for the pleasure of sitting in exit row seats (read: the only seats I can actually fit comfortably in), without actually informing their cabin crew as to which seats are actually reserved ahead of boarding the aircraft, has resulted in utter chaos.
In the event that a plane is sold to within 12 seats of full capacity, there arises a need to use the exit row seats which have not been pre-assigned to paying customers. On a recent flight from Barcelona, the plane was literally full, except for the unreserved exit row seats. I inquired as to whether I, as a fit and able person, could move to the exit row, only to be told that I could not and that persons sitting in the rows behind and in front of the exit rows were going to be assigned the task of managing the exits.
That all said, I find it hard to take the side of BAA in any dispute, even if it is with Ryanair. The two are, in my view, two sides of the same coin. One need only visit Edinburgh Airport to drop off or collect someone to be hit with a £1 charge simply for the privilege of driving close to the terminal. On one occasion, I was caught in a queue behind an unfortunate customer who had been waiting in the set-down area for eight or nine minutes and who found that their pound coin was unacceptable to the machine at the exit barrier. That spare minute was indeed not long enough for them and their charge quickly tripled.
Mr Jardine, in his final comments, is absolutely spot on: Ryanair gives you cheap travel and little else. In these times of financial hardship, customers cannot afford to be too picky. Customer service for the budget airlines has transformed into a large cave: your complaint is repeated back to you with the prefix ‘I understand that…’, as if someone ‘understanding’ your grievance is in some way restitution.
I would encourage anyone with the means to travel by full-service airlines – Aer Lingus is frequently only marginally more expensive than Ryanair for my own trips from Dublin to Edinburgh or London (even if it is part-owned by Ryanair) – or to use the occasional bargains that can be found on the state-owned East Coast railway line as far as possible.
A final thought: Mr O’Leary has frequently commented that every time he announces another seemingly-bizarre charge to his airline (£1 to use the toilets for example), traffic on his website increases. Perhaps Mr Jardine and myself are both equally guilty of playing into his hands?
Unlike many publications SR doesn’t have an online comment facility – we prefer a more considered approach. The Cafe is our readers’ forum. If you would like to contribute to it, please email islay@scottishreview.net
Islay’s Scotland
Culross, old and newish
Photograph by Islay McLeod
David Cameron has
raised the level of
the intellectual debate
Andrew Hook
I am no fan of David Cameron. On the central issue of the British economy and the deficit I agree with those who argue that the Cameron/Osborne austerity plan has failed. The budget cuts are, as Ed Balls has maintained all along, too deep and too fast. It’s time for Plan B. However, I have to say I found the prime minister’s performance on his recent visit to Scotland not unimpressive. The debate over the referendum issue has at last been raised to something nearer the intellectual level which its importance demands.
The knock-on effects were immediately clear. On Newsnight Scotland, Joyce McMillan and the peerless Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University were somewhat grudgingly prepared to admit that Mr Cameron had done well. The jokes were timely, and the tone was measured; the argument was lucid and well-presented; there was no scare-mongering and there were no slip-ups. Even the personal, emotional case on behalf of maintaining the union was hinted at.
Joyce McMillan was right to contrast this polished performance with the abysmal shortcomings of the leaders of the Scottish unionist parties. But what struck me most about the Newsnight discussion itself was the altogether more adult level at which it was pitched. The real issues of the referendum were at last under intelligent and serious discussion. Of course there will be those who say that has nothing to do with the prime minister’s intervention. I’m not so sure.
So in terms of the disputed issues, where was the Cameron contribution most significant? Clearly over the issue of whether there should be one or two questions on the referendum ballot-paper. The case for a single in/out question was made simply and forcefully. The central question is about independence: does Scotland wish to remain in or withdraw from the United Kingdom? That and that alone is what the referendum should decide. But it was here that the prime minister made his new and most provocative contribution. If the Scottish people vote in favour of the union, then according to Cameron, the whole issue of further devolution would be immediately up for discussion. Mr Cameron insists he is a friend of devolution, supports it, and thinks it could be made to work better. ‘Devo-max’, he suggests, would remain on the constitutional agenda.
The Scottish people, it seems to me, have only the vaguest of ideas of what a vote for independence, and the disentangling of Scotland from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, would really involve.
Andrew Hook is a former professor of English literature at
Glasgow University
website design by Big Blue Dogwebsite development by NSD Web