Peter A Russell (Letters, February 16) need not worry, no matter the “Scottish autonomy” dreams of Andy Maciver (“Anas Sarwar’s gamble on Starmer may be risky – but it might save him”, The Herald, February 13). Ask the Electoral Commission and there is only one Labour Party registered across the UK, and there seems no reason to think that will change, sensible or not.
Anas Sarwar is, in my opinion, engaged in an entirely performative action, pretending he can somehow divorce himself from the record of his own party. Astonishingly, this has allowed the media to engage in Orwellian doublethink, and pretend Mr Sarwar bears no responsibility for his own party's broken manifesto promises (including those made by Anas Sarwar).
Labour now has a record in government for Anas Sarwar to defend, whether 18 months in London or almost three decades in Wales. Labour MPs from Scotland have not been fooled by Mr Sarwar’s Houdini act, so why are Scotland’s media punditry so easily gulled by it?
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
• If Lech Walesa and Solidarity had followed the misguided reasoning of Peter A Russell in arguing for remaining in an illusory union, Poland would still be in the pervasive grip of the Communist Party and now effectively ruled by Vladimir Putin.
Mr Russell should reflect on recent European history and Anas Sarwar should cease promoting a fake “Scottish Labour Party”, run from London, as representing the interests of the people of Scotland. The Soviet Union was failing the nations of that union and the United Kingdom is failing the workers and nations of these islands. Westminster’s first past the post electoral system and the unelected House of Lords should be anathema to all guided by socialist principles.
Those sincere in representing the interests of Scotland’s people and who are not prepared to openly argue for federalism, or confederalism, should seek to directly represent the majority who believe that Scotland should be free to determine its own constitutional future.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.
Read more letters
- Labour needs to unite rather than divide
- Ratcliffe was wrong to blame immigrants for UK’s woes
- Why Sarwar is no longer the PM’s ally
Time to move on at FMQs
I don't often watch First Minister's Questions. When I do, it always seems to feature Anas Sarwar going on about the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital scandal, and never laying a glove on the First Minister.
Last Thursday he again alleged that senior SNP figures pressured management to open the hospital early. Yet again John Swinney put on his best, earnest, caring, slightly angry face and batted the allegations away ("Swinney has ‘confidence’ in ex-nursing chief amid ‘bribe’ claims", The Herald, February 13). The problem is Mr Sarwar doesn’t have any slam-dunk verbal or documentary evidence from one of the managers or witnesses. He either needs proof to go with any allegations, or he must utilise his slot to focus on other important matters: for example, the need for a Scottish grooming gang inquiry instead of the next questioner, Ross Greer, being allowed to virtue-signal about the Epstein scandal, which is not a devolved issue.
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.
What does the PM believe in?
I agree entirely with Andy Stenton (Letters, February 14) when he writes that “[Sir Jim] Ratcliffe was wrong to blame immigrants for [the] UK’s woes”. Overall, immigration has been enormously beneficial for this country; it’s certainly enriched my life.
However, I’ll save some of my ire for our shape-shifting Prime Minister, who has condemned Sir Jim Ratcliffe and called on him to apologise. But it’s less than a year since Sir Keir Starmer made an astonishing keynote speech in which he warned of the risk of Britain becoming “an island of strangers”; where he referred to the period of high immigration as “a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy and our country”; and described it as “a one-nation experiment in open borders… the damage this has done to our country is incalculable”.
Many observers commented on the echoes of Enoch Powell’s infamous “rivers of blood” speech from 1968, rightly so. It’s become impossible to work out what if anything our Prime Minister actually believes, beyond his iron-clad belief that he’s the right person for his job. He makes vapid, motherhood-and-apple-pie speeches that sound fine but mean nothing. It’s time he grew a spine and started making some of the bold changes that he’s hinted at but shies away from actually doing. Rejoining the EU would be a good start.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
What price freedom of speech?
Sir Jim Ratcliffe was ill advised to go public on the subject of immigration, illegal or otherwise. He was of course exercising his right of freedom of expression but in today's society it’s a very questionable right.
As a lifelong socialist I find myself disagreeing with most of his comments but agreeing with some. In today's society I’m then falling into the trap of “if you’re not for us, you’re against us". This is ridiculous and actually deeply offensive to me.
Agreeing with some views does not make me a racist or a bigot. We hear many demands for tolerance, freedom of speech, diversity et al but in reality it only applies to the content of one’s views.
Over my seven decades on this Earth I’ve mellowed from an extreme position that was impractical to a more practical and achievable form of socialism. I still believe in free education up to 18 years old, social housing, the NHS and the welfare system but have no issue with private enterprises wherever they exist.
As I enter what my beloved daughters call “the Victor Meldrew” stage of my life I struggle badly with the hypocrisy and incompetence of our politicians and I cannot cope with automated answering machines and the infuriating music that only tells me I’m in queue position 17.
However the rage is at its worst when I’m falsely accused of being some sort of -ist or -ism when I’m anything but. Freedom of speech? Aye it’s okay as long as you say what some people want to hear.
Finally, I think it was the late Jimmy Reid who said he refused to be labelled as left-wing as it was a geometrical term not a political one.
He said left or right in politics depends on where the centre is, and it moves constantly. This means that without changing your position you could go from left to extreme left or right to extreme right without actually changing your personal position. Welcome to my world...
John Gilligan, Ayr.
Ratcliffe was right
Sir Jim Ratcliffe was criticised by the Prime Minister for stating the truth, that Britain had been "colonised by immigrants" who were draining the country's resources. His views are shared by the vast majority in this country.
The cost of accommodation for asylum seekers alone is now over £5.4 billion a year. The UK population has grown by 10 million people since 2000, almost entirely due to immigration. Meanwhile Sir Keir Starmer is failing in his promise to "smash the gangs" and to stem the flood of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel. Since he took office 65,922 have landed and falsely claimed asylum. This invasion also contains criminals fleeing justice in Europe. Tens of thousands, yes tens of thousands, of extradition requests have been made to the UK by Germany, Belgium, France, Austria, Romania, Sweden and Cyprus.
We should be far less welcoming and not let these boats land but escort them to ships anchored in choppy seas and process their asylum claims there.
Clark Cross, Linlithgow.
Time to ditch Holyrood
The ongoing headlines in The Herald show what a total waste of taxpayers' money the Scottish Parliament is. We have more and more overpaid paper-shuffling, decision-dodging, irrelevant public quangos, wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers money that would be better spend on public employees that actually contribute something useful to Scotland's communities.
Recent headlines highlighted the ever-growing scandal of corridor care in our hospitals and the increasing violence and disruption in our schools: both serious problems for over a decade and yet little has been done due to a lack of accountability and the inability of our leadership to actually take responsibility and make some hard decisions.
Rule from Westminster might not be any better, but at least ditching the useless Scottish Parliament and associated hangers-on will free up some cash for essential public services.
Christopher Collins, Larbert.
Share