GR Weir tries to compare Greenland’s situation with Scotland’s, regarding independence, by taking Kemi Badenoch’s comments out of context (Herald Letters, January 23).
Maybe he’s forgotten Scotland voted to remain in the UK, while I understand Greenland has never held a referendum.
He then suggests separation from the UK could be a “simple process for lawyers”, simplifying a very complex situation.
It would be helpful if Mr Weir could explain what financial benefits would be gained from Scotland separating from the rest of the UK. Maybe also explain ‘simple’ things like currency, bank guarantees, borders (open or otherwise), passport controls, and, of course, defence.
Given we are almost independent, anyway, with our own defined country, our own legal system, our own education department and our own parliament, please explain how we would raise even more cash per head than we currently have with the UK.
We have had almost twenty years of SNP governments.
They have given us filthy streets; the collapse of our education system and health service; ferries that are either rented, unfit for purpose, or rusting in shipyards, seven years late for launching, and hundreds of millions over budget.
Be careful what you wish for. One thing is for sure… it’s not simple.
John Gilligan, Ayr.
More letters...
Kemi Badenoch one of the world's most inspiring women? Really?
Nigel Lawson was responsible for much of the mess Britain is in today
Farewell, Fidelma, you will be sorely missed. Saturday mornings just won't be the same
UK free of EU is diplomatically agile
The argument for the UK to rejoin the EU in response to Donald Trump’s Greenland manoeuvres last week misreads Brexit and today’s geopolitical reality.
Britain left the EU after years of persistent goods trade deficits with the bloc, nearing £90bn in 2024, while running a surplus with the rest of the world.
Re-joining would not fix Britain’s far greater priority of dealing with structural weaknesses or restore Britain’s leverage.
Europe’s long-standing failure to meet NATO defence commitments left it dangerously exposed when Russia invaded Ukraine.
While some EU states acted, too many could not due to decades of under-funding defence spending, a point repeatedly made by the US and Kyiv.
By contrast, the UK has consistently met its NATO obligations, provided early military support to Ukraine, and remains one of Europe’s most credible security partners.
That credibility matters. Outside the EU, Britain retains the diplomatic flexibility to confront Washington when necessary, including over Greenland, while maintaining strong transatlantic ties.
In a volatile world where a second Trump presidency appears intent on dividing Europe through tariffs and selective alliances,
Britain could play a vital stabilising role. However, the EU cannot expect the UK to shoulder that responsibility while imposing punitive trade barriers or continuing to punish Britain for the democratic decision to leave.
If the EU wants to avoid further fragmentation of the transatlantic alliance, it must recognise that Britain - independent, militarily credible and diplomatically agile - is uniquely placed to act as an honest broker between Washington and Europe.
Brexit Britain is not the threat to its existence.
Rather Europe needs Britain engaged on equal terms sooner rather than later.
Ian Lakin, Aberdeen.
Trump behaviour must be halted
Why was Donald Trump allowed so much opportunity to talk incoherently, at length, about matters unrelated to the Davos forum, which is meant to focus on economics (“Just how do we cope with President Trump’s self-obsessed world view”, The Herald, January 24).
In particular, he used the event to launch his Board of Peace, and what an assortment of unsuitables they appear to be.
He also held up yet another board with his signature, seen so many times in his executive orders, bypassing scrutiny from his peers.
This behaviour must end, surely for everyone's sake.
Willie Towers, Aberdeenshire.
Are some above the law?
Is Scotland becoming a two tier nation?
Ordinary Scots can run into trouble for driving at over twenty miles per hour, or parking on the kerb. Hardly heinous crimes.
Our Scottish government, however, can remain silent over the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, where infected water allegedly may have cost lives, or delay legal requests for documents in an ethics investigation regarding a well known politician.
Is this reasonable behaviour from Holyrood?
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.
Clean sweep
On the day Scotland’s Information Commissioner instructed lawyers to refer John Swinney's administration to the Court of Session for not releasing documents which the electorate are surely entitled to see, Don Ferguson's letter about “cleaning out the stables” and having decent politicians was very relevant (Herald Letters, January 23).
Scotland has suffered many years of a government which has trashed this country's once proud reputation in everything from education to shipbuilding.
It seems intent on pursuing agendas of no relevance to the people who elected them.
I’m with Mr Ferguson. Let’s grab those brushes and get sweeping.
Billy Gold, Glasgow.
Freedom of speech under threat
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson's pause on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act must be challenged.
Pausing the complaints scheme creates a toothless legal framework, allowing universities to ignore free speech duties with impunity.
No clear timeline for the complaints system allows staff and students to be hounded, censured, and silenced for holding legitimate, legal views.
British universities have fallen in international rankings for academic freedom, now ranking below countries such as Malawi and Sierra Leone.
Allowing cancel culture to fester is a badge of shame, undermining the international reputation of UK research and scholarship.
Ms Phillipson says she’s considering options, but she's been doing so for over a year. A right to free speech without a remedy is meaningless.
Without the complaints mechanism, how do academics seek redress when they're hung out to dry by university authorities?
Finally, Ms Phillipson has politicised her delay by calling the original act a “Tory hate charter” and citing safety concerns.
However, the signatories to the letter represent a broad, non-partisan range of academics concerned with intellectual freedom.
A balanced approach should not mean abandoning on-campus protection of legal speech.
Doug Clark, Currie, Edinburgh.
Reform UK’s rise bad for vulnerable
Fife held a local council by-election recently, and the turnout was low at 22.1%. The result saw an SNP victory.
However, second place worries me.
Though first, what does the result tell us about the state of political parties in Scotland?
It reveals that most recent opinion polls are right, because this result reflected what Scotland’s voters feel about the main unionist parties, coming third, fourth and fifth.
But it’s the second place that is cause for concern, as it went to Reform UK.
This result could translate to the upcoming Holyrood election, meaning Reform UK emerge as the main opposition, which would threaten the existence of our devolved parliament.
Then there is the right-wing policies Reform UK would inflict on Scotland.
This nation is a socially just society. There’s no place for right-wing politics, as has been demonstrated in national election results for decades.
The last time Scotland had a Conservative majority was in the 1950’s.
We can but hope that Reform UK has peaked, as the recent Norstat opinion poll suggests.
Hopefully voters will realise the seriousness of voting Reform UK.
It’s all very well using one’s vote to protest.
But at what cost to the country, the vulnerable, and the less well off?
Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk.
Share