For several years I have supported a charity called Peace Direct, which helps train and resource local peace building organisations in conflict zones in mediation and conflict resolution skills.
I suspect members of NHS Fife could have done with this organisation’s help in handling the Sandie Peggie case (“Nurse Peggie’s lawyers warn of problems for women after ruling”, The Herald, December 9).
Given that media outlets are characterising this judgement as a narrow points victory rather than a knock-out, it might be a moment to consider lessons learned rather than victories claimed.
Carlos Alba’s article (“Learn from history and beware the law of unintended consequences in trans debate”, The Herald, December 10) highlights perfectly the consequences of legal action where there are winners and losers and legal precedents set.
Instead of employing such practices as de-escalation, conciliation, or conflict resolution - which might spare us the trauma and expense of court cases and industrial tribunals - we too often end up with continuing and damaging conflicts.
It would be sad if future battles in this particular culture war are being planned.
A less confrontational approach, that might end up with results that are fair for everybody involved, should be the way forward.
Robin Irvine, Helensburgh.
More letters...
Co-operation, not by-laws, the key to national park success
Shackles of the Union mean that England can dictate our health spending choices
Swallowed up by my wheelie bin
Go local to avoid conflict
The Herald article about the trans issue being more polarised than it need be rightly points to society’s growing division on sensitive issues.
While respecting individual rights is essential, we must also ensure policies are rooted in fairness and social cohesion.
Distant, politicised decisions often deepen polarisation rather than resolve it, especially when community voices are sidelined.
We need a return to local decision-making that balances respect for individual circumstances with community values.
Institutions should focus on inclusive dialogue rather than ideological posturing. Roads, schools, and healthcare are the real concerns, where local control and accountability matter most.
It is time to move beyond conflict and focus on practical, rooted policies that unite communities.
Alastair Majury, Dunblane, Perthshire.
Who should lead?
People should ask themselves which political party is best suited to run the United Kingdom.
This means which leader is best suited to lead, and to form a cabinet of professionals.
Let's consider them all. Zack Polanski, formerly David Paulden and a Liberal Democrat, is now leader of the Green Party.
He has added socialism to the futile attempts to control the climate.
He leads with his chin. Next we have Sir Ed Davey of the Liberal Democrats. Can you really see this man as a Prime Minister ?
He seems to think voters will like his antics of water sliding, riding a hobby horse, generally making a fool of himself, and championing net zero and the privatisation of the Royal Mail.
That went well didn't it? Liberals do well despite Sir Ed, not because of him.
Then we have Nigel Farage. A brilliant speaker with a popular message, though his friendship with Donald Trump, absence of a cabinet in waiting, and the inconsistencies of the costings for Reform UK’s electoral promises may take the shine off his party in the months ahead.
I also worry about Mr Farage’s health because of his smoking and punishing daily schedules. There is also Sir Keir Starmer, by many accounts Britain's worst Prime Minister. He was a great supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and later turned against him.
An Ipsos poll showed he is the most unpopular PM since records began in 1977, with 79% dissatisfied with his performance. Which leaves Kemi Badenoch. She is a young, energetic and competent leader, who has picked a good team to run the country, with Mel Stride as her Chancellor, a safe pair of hands, and someone who is familiar with high finance.
Quite a contrast to the incumbent Chancellor.
Ms Badenoch has now settled into the job of Leader of the Opposition, and launched a detailed policy review.
She has scrapped net zero and other foolish polices of previous Conservative administrations, and only needs a rebrand and relaunch to make the Conservatives a serious contender at the next General Election.
William Loneskie, Lauder, Berwickshire.
Farage mirage
Canny Scots were wise not to be swayed by Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration rhetoric, or misleadingly simplistic claims of Brexit benefits.
Besides a broken UK economy, a cost-of-living crisis and struggling public services, Brexit has resulted in the loss of control of the UK’s border.
The primary beneficiaries of Brexit are those who sought to avoid greater scrutiny (as long as the UK remained within the EU) of their financial dealings.
These are the same wealthy people who now support Reform UK.
Hopefully, those who couldn’t see through the smoke and mirrors will not be ‘mugged’ again.
At the next Holyrood election they can trust in the considered judgement of their fellow Scots to enable the realisation of a fresh vision of the future, rather than believe in another Farage mirage.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian.
Government must support Scottish industry
During Treasury Questions in the House of Commons, SNP MP Dave Dougan rightly pointed out that Scotland is facing additional financial challenges as a result of the Labour Government at Westminster.
Mr Dougan explained that Scotland has the highest industrial energy costs in the G7, which is leading to job losses.
He highlighted the £26 billion raid on the cost of employment, with the increase in employers national insurance, again costing jobs.
Mr Dougan went on to ask where is the funding for the Acorn project (“Backer quits key carbon capture scheme”, The Herald, December 5), and also support for Mossmorran (“Mossmorran’s closure exposes the failure of Scotland’s industrial strategy – we need a plan”, The Herald, December 8).
Sadly, for workers at Grangemouth, and now Mossmorran, the UK Government’s financial support for vital industries has gone elsewhere… to INEOS in Antwerp, Belgium, with £600-700 million in loans.
Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk.
Warfare’s uncertain future
Those who did not pay attention to Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric over the last decade may reconsider after his administration’s national security strategy was published recently (“Trump’s new national security strategy has swipes at weak European allies”, The Herald, December 6).
It is American isolationism mixed with a kind of global Monroe Doctrine, and makes clear Mr Trump’s disdain for the European alliance, favouring Russia-friendly parties.
Moscow over Kiev; exporting high tech chips to China and disrupting world trade. MAGA policy looks like it is here to stay, so Europe needs to step up and provide security for itself.
Russia is not an immediate threat to Western Europe, so we have the time and technical ability to build a defence industry worthy of the name, but it will be costly.
Ukraine and the Baltic States face a different situation. If America cuts off the supply (paid by Europe) of weaponry, Ukraine will lose their war with Russia.
China now has an armaments industry equal to any.
Could we, or would we, approach China, to purchase its cheap and effective battlefield equipment? The US produces the world’s best high-tech (but also highly expensive) weaponry.
But war is now an arena for cheap autonomous drones, rather than tanks.
In the Great War generals had to be weaned off using horses in battle.
So, too, must modern generals envisage what a modern battlefield will be like.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Share