By Scotsman Letters

Copyright scotsman

A surprising omission in the analysis of Sir Keir Starmer’s mistakes in Scotland (“PM needs to focus north of the Border to save his skin”, 16 September) was the abrupt sacking of Ian Murray as Secretary of State for Scotland. This ignored Murray’s assistance in winning back Scotland for Labour, his loyalty to Starmer and its influence on voters, and Murray’s high standing in Scotland. And of course, the importance of Scotland to a Labour Government and the Union. Starmer’s key challenge in Scotland may be recovery from this fundamental error, and its effect on his support in Scotland Jane Griffiths, Edinburgh Reordering Law The “Not Proven” verdict is often appropriate where the Jury thinks the accused is guilty but there is absent the legal requirement for corroborative evidence (“Rape survivor behind campaign to scrap not proven verdict tells MSPs to end ‘harrowing process’ ”, 15 September). Contrary to the belief of many the only alternative verdict in these circumstances, if “Not Proven” were abolished, would be a verdict of “Not Guilty”. In any event, the most logical reform of the law would be to discard the Guilty verdict, leaving only “Proven” and “Not Proven”. Altering the law in this area would have serious consequences and it is to be hoped that the Scottish Parliament recognises all the complexities involved. The Rt Hon Lord Marnoch, Edinburgh It’s good to talk I am not a supporter of Reform but a recent report locally outlining how a venue cancelled an event booked by Reform, reflects a worrying trend. There have been many high-profile cases where events or speakers have been cancelled because the management or staff feel that sections of the public would disagree with the views of those attending. Organisations such as museums and art galleries have turned down sponsorship deals because the sponsor has investments in hydrocarbons, or supplies equipment to certain countries. I am aware of others locally where venues have turned down midweek, income-generating meetings and social event bookings for similar reasons. On one occasion the reason given was that someone living near the hall had objected. I don’t wish to embarrass the venues, and understand their instinct to refuse bookings they feel would be harmful to their reputations and future trade. However, rejecting bookings from perfectly legal and well-supported organisations risks backfiring. Remember when Scottish nationalists urged people to boycott Tunnock’s, Walker’s and other products because of some “British” branding This could potentially have harmed successful Scottish businesses and employees but it had the opposite effect, resulting in increased sales as pro-UK supporters and realists reacted in support of the firms. Surely the public in Scotland are intelligent enough to understand that because a venue is paid to provide food, drink, meeting space or other services for a particular group or organisation it does not mean that the management or staff support the views of those attending. We say we believe in democracy, freedom of speech and association – so let’s grow up and act accordingly. Mark Openshaw, Aberdeen Hardly cunning The Scottish Health Secretary, Neil Gray, has announced “we are the ones with a plan”, referring to the NHS and the warning that NHS staff are being stretched beyond their limit (“SNP insist they have plan to fix health service”, 16 September). From January-March 2025, only 68.9 per cent of Scottish cancer patients received treatment within the target of 62 days, the lowest since records began. Almost 24,000 adults are on NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment, of whom 2,000 have been waiting more than a year. And from an FOI response released recently, we have learnt that NHS managers are on average struggling to fill 900 shifts each day. Why does this make me think of Baldrick, who always had “a cunning plan”, and Blackadder, who would regularly remark on his “terrible record in this department”? The SNP have been in government since 2007. If their cunning plans haven’t worked by now, they never will. Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray Time to go Even before the resignation of Angela Rayner and the sacking of Peter Mandelson, the premiership of Keir Starmer wasn’t working. After just over a year in office, this Labour Government and Keir Starmer have shrunk in popularity at a record rate. Keir Starmer himself has been described as a manager rather than a leader, lacking any overall vision for his Government. While several good things happened, they’re more than negated by actions made, and hastily withdrawn. This Labour Government doesn’t feel like a Labour Government, lurching further and further to the right. The numerous backbenchers feel neglected and are restless. Mainstream MPs from the left are urging a new direction, or indeed, any direction at all. It’s time for Keir Starmer to move on. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Blind stupidity? The fallout from appointing, then sacking, Peter Mandelson leaves Prime Minister Keir Starmer claiming he’s “angry to have been put in that position”(your report,16 September). Put in that position by whom? Or more specifically – by what? Underlying Peter Mandelson apparently being “economical with the truth”, and the PM maintaining there was “proper due diligence” is entitlement, the sense that rules don’t apply to them – or to many (not all) at Westminster. A broken two-party, un-representative electoral system creates unchallengeable majorities, leaving governments unaccountable, even to parliament’s own committees. Recent turmoil leaves people “bewildered”, according to Labour MP Andy McDonald, which begs the question – have these “bewildered” people and those in power not been paying attention for the last two decades? Jeffrey Epstein’s abusive behaviour has a long history – the global hashtag #MeToo’ started in 2006, gaining momentum in 2017 when film producer Harvey Weinstein was accused of multiple crimes; in 2019 Prince Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview over his connections with Epstein led to his very swift exit from royal and public life. Labour’s quest for power blinded them to the fact that, eventually, “the truth will out”. Mandelson refers to “embarrassing emails” but they didn’t stop him taking the salary and prestige as the UK’s “Trump Whisperer”. Starmer’s defence is “nobody told me”, Mandelson’s skills were “worth the risk”. Borrowing rhetoric from Reform and Tommy Robinson playbooks, Starmer offers “national renewal, a patriotic call about this country… true patriotism”. It’s not patriotic soundbites Starmer needs but better, fairer policies: end the two-child benefit cap; introduce proportional representation; scrap Brexit and rejoin the EU; nationalise the railways; back an independent state of Palestine. A Westminster government led by Nigel Farage becomes a talked-about and alarming possibility; the present evidence suggests the next general election campaign will be a political nightmare worse than 1,000 Brexits. Voters will choose. Geraldine Prince, North Berwick, East Lothian Blame Brexiteers It has always intrigued me how those who are most resistant to the arrival of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK are the biggest proponents of Brexit. The irony of this is that leaving the EU made it even harder to control irregular migration than if we had remained a member state in the EU. Brexit removed several tools the UK previously used to manage irregular and asylum immigration. Under the Dublin Regulation, the UK was legally allowed to return asylum seekers to those EU countries they had transited through en route to Britain. Thanks to its geographical location as an island, the UK was in a relatively advantageous position as, unlike many EU border countries, the UK was rarely the first point of entry for asylum seekers arriving in Europe. After leaving the EU, we lost this mechanism. Additionally, the UK’s exit from Frontex, Eurodac (the EU’s biometric database for apprehended migrants and asylum seekers) and the Schengen Information System (the EU’s database on borders and security) has also weakened its ability to control irregular immigration post-Brexit. Despite the well-known dysfunctions of the Dublin system and Eurodac, leaving them due to Brexit has made it even harder for the UK to address this sensitive issue. Alex Orr, Edinburgh Unions shock The trade union movement have lost any sense of justice they may once have had. Their clear reluctance to accept the ruling of the Supreme Court on sex and gender is shocking. To attempt to fight the single sex verdict will cost union members, many of them women, possibly millions. Susan Dalgety of “Women won’t Wheesht” hits the matter squarely on the head when she states that misogyny continues to fester in the unions (“Why unions’ attempt to defy Supreme Court’s landmark gender ruling cannot stand”,13 September). That they would defy a Supreme Court ruling on trans matters in the way they are doing is incomprehensible. Their predecessors will be turning in their graves. Alexander McKay, Edinburgh 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.