I didn't think Starmer could stoop any lower. I was wrong

Trying to find a bright spot in this shocking announcement isn’t easy, but there is one. Care providers will have to pay their staff a lot more money if they’re going to attract sufficient applicants in the UK. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said this morning on Radio 4’s Today programme that care is a tough job and it is, so why doesn’t it pay a wage that reflects that? The difficulty, of course, is that our fragmented care system is already stretched near breaking point and, if wages go up, care homes will close. What then, Sir Keir?

Doug Maughan, Dunblane.

Read more letters

• I'm grateful to the SNP when I recall the harm Tories and Labour did
• Why Scotland must be part of Brexit's Global Britain strategy
•  Sarwar said he would hold Starmer to account. What happened?

Strangers who are friends

I have a number of chronic conditions, but thanks to the NHS I am mobile and relatively pain-free. Also, last year I was taken to our local A&E before being transferred to Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, where over the course of three days I received treatment and my health was monitored. None of this would have been possible without the amazing work of nurses, doctors, paramedics, radiographers, cleaners and others whose work keeps the NHS functioning. Many of these wonderful workers are immigrants or the offspring of immigrants, some of whom may be refugees escaping oppressive regimes, others may have moved here for a better life. Without them, the NHS would be unable to function and we would all suffer as a consequence.

I am in my seventies, my husband is in his 80s and it is possible, perhaps even probable, that at some stage we will need the help of the care sector, many of whose workers are immigrants. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's proposed restrictions on immigration will only make it more difficult for many people to access NHS and social care, with the result that both the quality and length of life could be affected. Keir Starmer's decision to pander to the far right will harm many thousands of elderly, disabled and chronically ill people. It could lead to family members having to take up the slack left by a lack of care workers, which could lead to people giving up work in order to look after loved ones. This could lead to lower levels of economic activity and more people relying on benefits. Everyone loses.

The PM claims that immigration can lead to a country of strangers. Perhaps he should listen to the Emmylou Harris song "Hello Stranger", which opens with the lines: "Hello stranger, put your loving hand in mine/You are a stranger, you are a friend of mine". Or perhaps he should read the Parable of the Good Samaritan from the Gospels, where Jesus tells the story of someone who was helped by a stranger after being beaten up and robbed.

Kevin Crowe, Wick.

The elephant in the room

From his recent Downing Street speech it appears that PM Starmer has had a Damascene moment causing him to launch a “crackdown on immigration” and to “ take back control of our borders". About time, but the devil will be in the detail. Nevertheless, it's a very populist policy if it works, but of course nothing to do with the rise of Reform. However, his promise was qualified by the rather vague target that the “wish” is for immigration levels to fall “significantly” by the end of the current parliament. That confirms that whatever measures are introduced, he acknowledges that it will take years to have a significant effect, and even then the numbers will still be huge.

There is one step he could take which would have an immediate effect, but he makes no mention of it. It appears therefore that he is deliberately turning a Nelson’s eye to the elephant in the immigration room which is the invasion of increasing numbers of illegal migrants coming across the Channel in small boats. That invasion simply reflects a supply and demand situation. Instead of continuing to pursue his failed policy of trying to deal with the supply aspect by “smashing the gangs” (how many smashed so far?), he should take the obvious step of removing the demand aspect by legislating that anyone arriving illegally is automatically disqualified from staying here and will be deported, no ifs or buts. Why not at least give it a try?

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Brexit potential becoming clear

Alan Woodcock (Letters, May 13) refers to the highly contentious "fact" that Brexit resulted from the Little Englander mentality, trots out the hoary old myth that Leavers were "conned", when in fact the mainstream media was so massively pro-Remain that its odds were 1-3, and then quotes a newspaper article of dubious origin claiming that Brexit was costing UK businesses over £3 billion per month.

Facts are chiels that winna ding, and an incontrovertible one is that the UK was always a net contributor to the EU, latterly to the tune of some £9bn annually (the equivalent of  around £150 from every adult). The rogue Boris Johnson and his successors had no intention of "getting Brexit done"; only now is its potential becoming clear.

George Morton, Rosyth.

Michael Matheson (Image: PA)

Keep Matheson off the gravy train

You report that "pressure had been mounting on Mr [Michael] Matheson to step aside after he was handed the longest-ever ban in Holyrood for accumulating a data roaming bill of £11,000 on his parliamentary iPad while on holiday in Morocco" (“Matheson accused of striking a ‘backroom deal’ to quit Holyrood”, The Herald, May 13).

That is misleading. It was not the accumulation of the data roaming bill that felled Mr Matheson but the fact that he had been given the opportunity to correct his "error" but he chose to proceed with a devious strategy to protect his own position and on several occasions he lied to the electorate of Scotland, misled parliament and on a deviation of the most fundamental standards of morality and parenthood, threw his own children under the bus.

The delayed, initially reluctant, investigation by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) found that Mr Matheson had breached multiple sections of the MSP code of conduct and in particular those related to the misuse of parliamentary expenses and facilities. Nothing could have been more damning of a person appointed to represent the electorate and to hold a position in charge of a ministerial portfolio. The curdled cream on this particular cake was that Mr Matheson only resigned on the eve of publication of the SPCB report when every opportunity to fool the public and save his miserable soul had evaporated.

To the end he was defended by the first ministers Humza Yousaf and John Swinney who at best were misled by Mr Matheson underlining his lack of integrity. Their silence after the report's publication was deafening.

Questions must also be asked of the initial actions of the Scottish Parliament's civil service that allowed the bill to be declared as "parliamentary expenses" when it very obviously was not.

It is astonishing that Mr Matheson passed even the most basic and fundamental elements of the SNP vetting process to continue as an MSP. Had he been working in the private sector, not only would he have been denied the opportunity to correct his "error" but he would have been summarily dismissed for a gross breach of conduct without notice or pay in lieu of notice.

It concerns me that many previous MSPs have ended up working in, and even leading, the burgeoning empires of the quangos. One hopes that his record of directly misleading two first ministers, the very top of his management structure, and his very transparent record in the "misuse of parliamentary expenses and facilities" debars him from boarding that particular gravy train.

Peter Wright, West Kilbride.