Readers' Letters: What happened to respecting viewpoints of others?

I take no position on the merits of the Peggie case. However, your editorial summarises what is surely a more fundamental point about the state of discourse and problem-solving in Scotland. There are so many examples in recent times of situations in which problems could have been addressed through respectful conversations, constructive dialogue and cooperative negotiation. So much energy, time, money and morale is expended taking up positions, fighting corners, using abusive language, attacking those with different views and polarising public opinion.

It suits some to do this, of course. But, for the majority of us, there is surely a deep sense of frustration at how differences and disputes are often played out, with no room for nuance, subtlety, uncertainty and all the other features of what are usually complex issues on which people understandably hold differing views.

Oh for public figures, including our political leaders, who would have the courage and honesty to acknowledge that there may be other equally valid points of view to their own and who will search for the common ground and shared purpose. That would be a mark of real leadership.

John Sturrock KC, Core Solutions, Edinburgh

Can of worms

Brian Forsyth accuses me of misrepresenting the law and showing condescension towards For Women Scotland (FWS). He also says that decisions on trans access should be made on a case by case basis and as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim (Letters, 6 December).

I fully agree with the latter. But that is not what FWS are saying. Their belief is that all biological men must be excluded from female spaces regardless. I have repeatedly asked how that will work in respect of maintenance staff etc. Not only do I never get a clear answer but I have had my questions dismissed as “hypothetical”.

The panel in the Peggie tribunal disagreed and raised these very questions as a significant issue in paragraphs 801-802 of their judgment. They concluded that excluding biological males in all circumstances was not only unworkable but at odds with the Supreme Court judgment.

As regards the updated EHRC guidance, it says it is permissible to take a biological male into a female toilet if he is under ten and with his mother because he is not deemed to be a physical threat. Given we have primary school teachers complaining about being physically assaulted by small children, that is equally unworkable

Not only that, the Workplace Regulations introduce a privacy factor which would prevent a mother taking her son to a female toilet in her workplace, while the EHRC interpretation would allow her to do so in the public library next door. That makes no sense.

I warned six months ago that the Supreme Court judgment would open the proverbial can of worms in terms of how the law was now to be interpreted. The two latest tribunal judgments are simply confirming that reality.

​Robert Menzies, Falkirk

Labour weakness

Deputy Political Editor David Bol, in his Analysis column, thinks the SNP can beat Labour next year if they keep the focus on independence and energy costs (9 December).

On the former, no-one in Scotland believes that the SNP have a strategy for doing this, and as evidence we can quote both the 2016 and 2021 elections, fought on this basis, and which never took them anywhere, even with a majority of pro-Indy seats. The Supreme Court judgment that everyone seems keen to forget removed their options totally, and that nice Mr Swinney doesn’t have the appetite for it anyway.

He goes on to say they will cut energy costs, but of course, does not say how. Any proper analysis would have to answer that question.

For the record, I think the SNP will almost certainly beat Labour next year, but only because Labour have not done anything to persuade people to vote for them. Beyond Anas Sarwar and perhaps Jackie Baillie, most people in Scotland would struggle to even name another of their MSPs, so anonymous and ineffective have they become.

The SNP at least believe in something, and are making an effort to get re-elected. Scottish Labour are not cutting through at all. From this perspective, John Swinney doesn’t even have to make silly promises he knows he can’t keep. Labour are not going to beat him anyway. They have left it too late to do anything of note at all.

Victor Clements, Aberfeldy, Perth and Kinross

Easy fixes

There is a simple way for John Swinney to cut energy bills in Scotland by one-third in the January 2026 budget (your report, 9 December).

An independent Scotland would not receive £14 billion of cash from the Barnett consequentials. All the Finance Secretary needs to do in 2026 is ringfence the cash from the Budget and use the £14bn to cut energy bills, dual the A9, A96, A75 and A77 and provide public sector staff in rural Scotland with a remote region allowance that will ensure NHS units in rural areas can attract the same workforce levels and facilities in the Central Belt!

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas, Dumfries & Galloway

Fighting back

Ian Petrie seems to be calling for the prosecution of Benjamin Netanyahu as he lists various faults of Israel (Letters, 4 December). Let’s just turn that round a little and try to understand why Israel seems to be on a permanent war footing.

Since the Romans evicted the Jewish people from the Middle East, they have also subsequently been evicted from anywhere they have tried to settle. And in one instance, the Spanish Inquisition, by torture. Of course the ultimate one was the Nazi extermination of millions, along with any other group to which they took a dislike.

In 1948, by international agreement, the State of Israel was set up, and immediately the surrounding Arab countries attacked, intent on killing it at birth. They failed but have been trying ever since. It is well known that the destruction of Israel is their total aim. The constant bombardment culminated in the atrocity of October 2023.

Why should any country be on the receiving end of such action and be expected to turn the other cheek?

Charles Lowson, Fareham, Hants

Hospital stays

One might think that Scotland's highly paid politicians and NHS Scotland's top officials would have at least common sense. Not so, neither Neil Gray, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, nor Caroline Lamb, Director-General of Health and Social Care and Chief Executive of NHS Scotland, has shown any.

Foreign tourists have been allowed to run up debts to Scotland's NHS to the tune of £8.9 million over the past five years. In addition another £2.1m has been written off as bad debt.

Why? If UK nationals travel abroad and require treatment they need to show they have health insurance or give details of their credit cards. No payment, no treatment. This should be mandatory in our NHS unless it is to save a life. Changes to prevent this blatant theft of taxpayers' money are essential. Our NHS is not the World Health Service.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Nothing new

I see from your report of 8 December that Scottish Labour are getting agitated again about there being, as they see it, a two-tier health system, as if this were a recent development.

However, I think this was implicit in the arrangements Aneurin Bevan made with the BMA when the NHS was being set up and the Government accepted that doctors, especially consultants, could work in the NHS for a salary but also take private fee-paying patients.

In my experience, how it worked was that if you desired urgent treatment which was not forthcoming from the NHS you had a word with your GP, who would put you in touch with a consultant who saw you, for a fee, and if appropriate, got you into a hospital where he “had beds” – probably a hangover from pre-NHS days. Since then we have had the development of private hospitals, private health insurance, health tourism etc to meet the demand for care which the NHS has never been able to satisfy fully.

S Beck, Edinburgh

Double duty

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Britain will establish a new hybrid naval force comprised of warships, patrol aircraft, uncrewed boats and drones to protect critical undersea cables and pipelines from Russian submarines.

Could this hybrid force not also, as part of its remit, be used to detect and forewarn us of illegal immigrants leaving French and other Continental coastal waters for the UK?

Doug Clark, Currie, Edinburgh

Grimm tidings

Colin McAllister et al have made efforts to facts check elements of a famous Biblical story (Letters, 8 December). It is nigh on 70 years since I believed different, equally well-known tales, but I’m no longer convinced that porridge was prepared in the home of those three bears, or that a wolf ate Red Riding Hood’s granny.

Jim Douglas, ​​​​​​Penicuik, Midlothian

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.