Readers' Letters: SNP would leave Scots defenceless in face of aggressive Russia

The funding was pulled thanks to SNP policy. The SNP opposes the defence of the UK on the pathetic grounds that they dislike nuclear weapons. Well, so do I, especially the ones pointed at us by Russia. As the Ukrainians have pointed out, there would be no Russian forces in their country if they had not unilaterally given up their nuclear stockpile (with Russian guarantees) in the Nineties. The jobs will probably end up in England. Well done, SNP.

If anyone in the Glasgow area who cares about our independence and democracy wishes to stay free and democratic, they cannot possibly vote for a party like the SNP who would leave us defenceless in the face of an aggressive, imperialist power like Russia.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Who’s posturing?

On 2 July The Scotsman's leader column commented on the SNP government’s refusal to support munitions production in Scotland by stating that “National security must take precedence over politically driven moral posturing”. This sounded like a familiar phrase until I realised this was almost exactly Benjamin Netanyahu’s justification for creating starvation conditions in Gaza.

It was also Keir Starmer’s excuse for not backing an SNP motion for a ceasefire in Gaza during a Westminster debate last year. Yet 12 months on we have the same Mr Starmer threatening trade sanctions in response to the unjustified bombing of Palestinian woman and children while simultaneously declining to stop selling munitions to Israel. Is that not politically driven moral posturing with bells on?

The SNP won an election in Scotland based on adhering to a moral principle now being derided by the UK Defence Secretary John Healey as “student union politics”. His party lost that election so it would appear that the people agreed with the students.

Finally, given that defence is reserved, can somebody explain why the Scottish Treasury is being asked to fund a defence initiative that was decided in Westminster without any reference to the Scottish Government?

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

MAD decision

Across the length and breadth of the UK the NHS and other public services are in desperate need of additional funding. In England alone the predicted funding gap for local councils in 2025/26 is £3.4 billion, a figure expected to rise to £6.9bn by 2026/27 according to research by UNISON. In the third quarter of 2024/25 there were 106,000 workforce vacancies in NHS England with 27,000 nursing positions needing filled. One of the consequences of persistent understaffing has been widespread staff burnout. This has led to a mental health crisis amongst healthcare workers.

Bearing all this in mind it is difficult to comprehend why Sir Keir Starmer is evidently determined to spend billions more on “defence”.

If the UK, US, Russia, China etc keep upping the ante by spending more and more on increasingly sophisticated weapons the only beneficiaries will be arms companies and their shareholders. The inevitable outcome of continued escalation of tensions will be nuclear war and mutually assured destruction!

It is surely time for our government to focus on welfare not warfare!

Alan Woodcock, Dundee

Bluff called

Nigel Farage has certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons. His brief Scottish visit revealed his desire to run a close eye over government spending.

He mentioned the Barnett formula which gives Scots a £1,500 or so “Union dividend”. This is correct, but the SNP never mentions this positively. If this sum was reduced Scotland would be in deep trouble as our already higher taxes must rise or expenditure must be cut. Talk of our “wonderful situation” as regards renewable energy and Scotland receiving far less in return for general taxation are dubious to say the least.

The SNP has lived in Cloud Cuckoo Land for years over claims “independence” would fix all. It has repeatedly gone for benefits increases without due consideration as to where the money will come from. The reality, is Holyrood needs Westminster more than Westminster needs Holyrood.

Truly the SNP bluff has been called.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Enough Farage

Nigel Farage – that perpetually smirking peddler of English nationalism – has once again deigned to visit Scotland, though “visit” is too charitable a word for what amounts to a fugitive’s furtive dash between closed-door meetings and stage-managed photo ops. Here is a man who has built an entire career on brazen falsehoods that would make even Donald Trump blush, yet who now slinks northwards, dodging scrutiny like a man allergic to daylight.

His latest wheeze? A proposal to slash £400 billion from public spending – a figure so recklessly draconian that it makes former Tory Chancellor George Osborne’s austerity look like a Labour budget. But then, Farage has never been one to let arithmetic – or indeed, reality – interfere with a good populist con. Brexit, his crowning lie, has already left Britain poorer, weaker and more isolated. Yet here he is, undeterred, flogging the same snake oil under a fresh label.

And what of his sudden devotion to “America First” rhetoric? The man who once postured as the great defender of British sovereignty now fawns over the US far-right, as if his principles were anything more than a series of grubby alliances with whoever will give him airtime. One can only imagine his vision for Scotland: the NHS flogged off to the highest bidder, workers’ rights gutted and the country picked clean by private equity vultures.

No surprise, then, that support for Scottish independence now stands at 59 per cent – a damning verdict not just on the Union, but on the procession of chancers Westminster keeps inflicting upon it. The English nationalists have overplayed their hand, and Scotland, increasingly, has no patience left for their nonsense.

Farage thrives in the shadows, where his lies go unchecked and his bluster passes for conviction. But the act is wearing thin.

The question is no longer whether he can be stopped, but how much more damage he’ll be allowed to wreak before the country – and Scotland in particular – finally decides it’s had enough of the charlatan.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

Neutral? Yes please

Lord Steel of Aikwood (Letters, 2 June) is correct in saying that “the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament is required to give up party membership and be neutral”. Would that that were so. Alison Johnstone has allowed flagrant breaches of acceptable behaviour by SNP ministers, but it is Conservative Douglas Ross who has been sanctioned for trying to get answers from them.

Only a couple of weeks ago, Ms Johnstone was unmoved when John Swinney roared “the Conservative Party is a disgusting organisation”, without requesting that he moderate his language.

More recently, Ash Regan asked a detailed, courteous and reasonable question of Shirley-Anne Somerville, the social security minister: “Trans-identifying people deserve dignity and honesty, but women and girls deserve safety. So what support is there for those who faced coercion, risked harm under gender self-ID, whose wellbeing, whose livelihoods have suffered for defending the lawful human rights to sex-based protections for women and girls?”

Ms Somerville gave a non-answer: “We have consistently called for everyone that is engaging in this debate to be respectful and mindful of their tone during this debate...”.

Not the slightest attempt to answer the question referring to those who have been vilified for defending women’s privacy, dignity and safety, those who have been dismissed or disciplined for refusing to accept the false doctrine based on denial of biological sex. And no reproof from Ms Johnstone.

I recall Ken Macintosh, a previous Presiding Officer, insisting repeatedly that Joe Fitzpatrick, SNP MSP, answer a question rather than deliver a prepared speech. There seems to be no chance of Ms Johnstone following that example.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Bank clearances

Further to Katharine Hay’s article on the “new clearances” (2 June), I quote the words of the late Norman Vincent, who said in an interview with STV on the closure of the four Bank of Scotland branches in Sutherland, “Well this is just like the second Highland Clearance.”

The first removed people for sheep. The second is moving people for wind turbines, battery energy storage systems (BESS) and pylon lines.

Michael Baird, Bonar Bridge, Highland

Crowded house

Re: your editorial, “Tribute band to upstage Oasis? Murrayfield showdown looms” (3 June), it's bad enough being invaded three times in a week during the Festival, when the city is already bursting at its seams, by Oasis fans, without the prospect of several thousand more Oasis tribute band fans in the Ice Rink.

Your editorial naively speaks of the crowds mixing in local bars after the shows. There are four local bars! This is a residential area, totally unable to cope with tens of thousands of fans pouring in over a five-day period. It's madness!

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] 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.