By Scotsman Letters

Copyright scotsman

In March Donald Trump warned Vladimir Putin of severe economic sanctions, repeating in mid-July his threat to “enforce them” if there was no ceasefire within 50 days – a period which covered his Alaska meeting fiasco and which has now expired with no action. He then said he would do so but only after the EU imposed sanctions, knowing this was highly unlikely in view of Slovakia’s and Hungary’s opposition. He now further weakens his threat by linking it to all Nato members not only agreeing such sanctions but also ceasing to buy Russia’s oil, again knowing that, however desirable and long overdue, that cannot happen in the short-term. Finally, he repeats that “this is not Trump’s war, it is Biden’s and Zelensky’s war” – blaming Ukraine, not Putin. Facing the new Axis of Russia, Belarus, Iran, China and N Korea, effectively supported by numerous fellow-travellers even within the Commonwealth, our democratic “free world” leadership is sadly lacking; let’s hope that at Chequers our Prime Minister can stiffen Trump’s spine. John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife Left or right? Right wing Donald Trump versus Left wing Keir Starmer. Who is more in tune with public thinking? The vociferous Left would have you believe it is them. The Right, however, is stacking up the evidence in its favour. We are witnessing the death of the one in, one out immigration scheme from Day One. We are seeing little action taken on grooming gangs and almost no action taken to guard our borders. Justice is haywire. Lucy Connolly jailed yet Bob Vylan free to rant some more. There are so many other injustices, ranging from unfair taxation to ludicrous net zero schemes. Is it any wonder people are turning to the Right in the hope of salvation? While this may prove to be a pipe dream, we are certain of what turning to the Left creates. It is chaos. Who is generally doing a better job for their population: Trump or Starmer? Why can’t we bring back the great in Great Britain? Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Long live King! Donald Trump’s unprecedented second state visit may well be something of an embarrassment. The haunting presence of sacked Ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson lurks awkwardly in the background. Mandelson did so much behind the scenes in the arrangements for this visit. Sadly he leaves, in his wake, another ghost, Jeffrey Epstein, best buddy to both Mandelson and Trump. It will be surprising if the subject of their mutual friendship isn’t raised, and intriguing to see the President’s response. What will emerge from this visit is just how unpopular President Trump is in the UK, as well as the US, where, acting more and more as a dictator, he is doing irreparable damage. Whatever our views on the monarchy, we are lucky to have King Charles, Trump’s latest buddy, more likely to be fawned over than fawning. Long live the King! Ian Petrie, Edinburgh In good health With hundreds of thousands of general public interactions every day the NHS, especially since the Covid pandemic, is an easy target for those seeking to score political points. In Scotland, Anas Sarwar at FMQs routinely references the latest aggrieved individual his party has managed to identify in the campaign to undermine the overall service delivery of the NHS, and by implication the Scottish Government and the SNP. The fact that by far the vast majority of the public interacting with the NHS in Scotland consider they are provided with a good service, and generally a better service than is provided in the rest of the UK, is left unsaid, effectively denigrating the same people who worked tirelessly to look after all of us during that global catastrophe. Jane Lax (Letters, 17 September), in criticising Neil Gray’s plan, follows the lead of Mr Sarwar and selectively quotes statistics without any broad context or comparisons with the NHS elsewhere in the UK. Should Ms Lax or Mr Sarwar be genuinely interested in improving the NHS in Scotland, they should be questioning the increasing NHS privatisation in England and Wes Streeting’s muted plans for a new round of PFI contracts for the building of neighbourhood health centres in England. Many Scottish councils are still financially struggling due to the last round of PFI funding for building hospitals, as introduced by the Tories and expanded by Labour, evidenced by the continuing proliferation of potholes, while libraries and other local facilities are closed. Perhaps, though, rather than have a serious detailed discussion on future health and social care provision in Scotland, within the current UK funding regime, some would prefer to fabricate diversionary and essentially non-constructive misleading political soundbites. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian Diplomats, please That Peter Mandelson was ever appointed as our man in Washington points to the prime minister’s poor character judgment. Mandelson had resigned from the Cabinet on multiple occasions in circumstances that raised questions about his character. Experienced politicians have something to offer the diplomatic process. But outwith exceptional circumstances, ambassadorships surely ought to be the domain of professional diplomats who have earned that role by long, apolitical service and proven ability. Mandelson’s tenure as a European Commissioner is not enough in this regard. It was a mistake for the Prime Minister to appoint Mandelson to such an important role given the latter’s history. The broader lesson, though, is that the job of frontline diplomacy is best left to diplomats, not politicians. Christopher Ruane, Lanark, South Lanarkshire Nothing doing As the parliamentary petition for a general election flirts with a million signatures, this futile symbolic process highlights the glaring inadequacy of the British parliamentary system. British voters can elect a prime minister but, perversely, they have no means to remove him, or her, once in post. Keir Starmer became Prime Minister with a third of the national vote and has been a complete disaster from the start. Sadly, he will cling on. Equally sad is that there is no respected Labour candidate to replace him, and the Opposition has imploded. The lame and tame Speaker has no influence at all and there is no impartial party grandee to guide the House of Commons onto firmer ground. The status quo is heading for catastrophe and the simmering feral mobs will erupt at the first opportunity. The outdated first-past-the-post electoral system continues to fail and there is no intellectual or political momentum to reform it. Every MP should have to achieve over half of their constituency vote, enabling any future Prime Minister to claim that they represent the majority of the country, not just a flimsy minority. That would be a good start. Gradually we would realise that we don’t need 650 MPs when 500 fairly elected and more dedicated candidates could easily reduce the number further. Such suggestions are way above Starmer’s comfort zone and that of his coterie of unelected, but highly paid, political posers. Are there no Labour MPs qualified enough to advise on government policy and work diligently in No10 ? It is truly incredible that Starmer, with a parliamentary majority of 165, has achieved absolutely nothing. Graham Hadley, Dunfermline, Fife Propaganda Anyone who writes of “this Fascist flood from the South”, as Elizabeth Scott (Letters, 16 September) does, shows signs of confusion. “Fascist” was the name of an Italian political party and regime, from 1922-45. It is not a term to be thrown about casually by people who are ignorant of its precise meaning and of its dictatorship. Ms Scott likes to compare an apple with a banana: Scunthorpe with Grangemouth. Scunthorpe is a steelworks, the last of its kind in the UK producing virgin steel, which is used in major construction projects like buildings and railways. The rest of the steel produced in the UK is recycled. Grangemouth is an oil refinery that has been losing half a million dollars a day. There are five other refineries in the UK. Claiming “Scotland should be ashamed of hanging on rUK’s coattails, waiting for promised handouts that never arrive” is fatuous. Every Scot receives, in terms of public spending, over £2,000 per year more than the UK average. Scotland runs a deficit now over 11 per cent which it could not sustain without the support of HM Treasury. Making outrageous claims with no evidence is Ms Scott’s MO. An independent Scotland would not borrow money as Westminster does. With no track record, a massive deficit, no genuine central bank or lender of last resort, who would lend to it, at what rates? Scotland would not be “back in a supportive European Union”, as she claims. It does not meet EU entry requirements and would need eyewatering austerity to do so, over decades. The EU is not looking for new countries to be “supportive” to. Spreading dishonest separatist propaganda does not advance debate. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh Unfair pensions The triple lock will not benefit all pensioners equally. Only those born from 1953 onwards will receive the full amount. Those born before that are already paid £200 a month less and the proposed rise will only widen the gap at a time when many born before 1953 are struggling. Elizabeth Hands, Armadale, West Lothian Write to The Scotsman We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to lettersts@scotsman.com including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.