Readers' Letters: Will youngest voters fall for dubious promises of parties?

This is usually used by parties that believe that their woke caring, benefits and freebies will be popular with young people. The SNP, for example, believed impressionable young people, unfamiliar with economic reality, were more likely to support separation from the UK and an unsubstantiated promise of Utopia. Hence the voting age already being 16 in Scotland.

This will eventually backfire when the woke wake up and realise that the largesse being offered now will leave them with increasing National Debt, higher taxes, and wondering why they bothered to saddle themselves with student debt and aspirations of a better life through effort. The UK is struggling with increasing National Debt, budget deficit and a population that feels it is entitled to government support for every aspect of life’s tribulations. This is obviously unsustainable.

The next test of the naivety or otherwise of the young will be Scottish election next May. Will they fall for the promises of those parties telling them what they want to hear, or will they examine what is being offered in the various manifestos and campaigns in sufficient detail to recognise the absurdities?

The most obvious and easily discredited absurdity is separation from the UK as a solution. The latest GERS figures show Scotland has over £2,400 per head extra public spending, equating to 9.1 per cent of UK public total, despite raising only 8.1 per cent of UK revenue (including North Sea oil) and a deficit more than double that of the UK as a whole – and this is before the cost, distraction and uncertainty of another referendum and negotiation of terms (think Brexit!).

Another factor is whether there will be a party brave enough to present us with the unvarnished truths and a plausible, if painful, plan for addressing them.

Mark Openshaw, Cults, Aberdeen

Limited thinking

The rollout of the 20mph limit in Dalkeith seems to be quite farcical, with little intelligent thought behind it. The public were consulted and ignored because, I read somewhere, the decision had already been made! There are now 20mph signs going up in areas where – according to the “Midlothian 20mph Speed Limit Review” – it should be staying at 30mph. What a mess.

I agree that in built-up areas and around schools, a speed limit restriction can be a good thing, but in many other areas, where there are no schools, no houses, no footpath, so no pedestrians, it is simply stupid.

Who makes these decisions? Councillors? Council employees? Will these new limits stop a tiny bunch of idiots from speeding? No they won't. Why is every responsible motorist being punished with limits and speed bumps?

It would be interesting to see the cause of accidents – is it always speeding or just bad driving or genuine unavoidable accidents?

Dave McInnes, Dalkeith, Midlothian

Double standards

I see that it’s now Murdo Fraser’s turn to wade into the free speech debate (Perspective, 20 August). He starts out by championing the Scottish Enlightenment where “the orthodoxies of a previous age were being challenged”. But hang on, was that not what the Holyrood Gender Reform Act was supposed to be doing, and was he not vehemently opposed to such a challenge being made?

He also says “the notion that because somebody disagrees with my views I should not be permitted to express them is a worrying development”. Wait a minute, was it not a Conservative Government which banned IRA spokesmen from TV broadcasts in order to deny them “the oxygen of publicity”. All the media did then was to use voice-trained actors to mouth the words of the banned, resulting in their views being given a far greater degree of credibility than previously.

Then he insinuates that the creation of a safe room for staff was a direct consequence of Kate Forbes being present at a Summerhall debate. In reality such a room is there to protect staff from others who may hold similar views to the speaker but who are more violent in promoting their opinion. An employer has a duty to protect staff from any potential confrontations, especially in a publicly accessible venue where exchanges can become heated. Otherwise they could be held liable for any injuries sustained as a consequence. As a lawyer I would have expected him to know that.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

NHS efficiency

Further to The Scotsman’s lead article on the Scottish Ambulance Service (20 August), my experience last month was quite the opposite. I was blue-lighted to the Borders General Hospital, and would like to mention the speed with which the 999 call was answered and the emergency ambulance despatched and the quickness with which it arrived, the professionalism and kindness of First Responders Julie and Erin, the rapid, professional and successful treatment I received at the Borders General, and the kindness and care of all staff I met.

The call-handlers have to speak to the patient, if possible, to prioritise ambulance dispatch because, as you report, the service itself says their "resources are not without limit". I don't think Dr Sandesh Gulhane's comments about the ambulance service service are helpful either and it's certainly not my experience that “the NHS is in crisis”.

William Loneskie, Oxton, Lauder, Berwickshire

Bored by Sturgeon

So one of Nicola Sturgeon's ex-pat luvvie supporters, Irvine Welsh, has turned on her, stating that her position on trans-rights has set back the independence bandwagon. Perhaps. But what's more likely is that we've grown tired of the former first minister’s egotistical promotion of the cult of Nicola and sick to the back teeth of her claim that most people who criticise her are misogynistic bigots.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Soft on illegals

It is now costing taxpayers £8 million a day to house migrants, who have come to the UK illegally, in hotels. There are 35,651 of them being housed, fed and given NHS care, pocket money, entertainment and more.

What people do not know is the extent of the other perks they get. Some universities allow migrants to study for free despite students living in England having to pay £9,535 per year. Some councils are giving these migrants free driving lessons and bus passes. According to Migration Watch, taxpayers have paid £135 million in legal aid for asylum cases since 2018, much of it to fight on behalf of asylum seekers who have already had their asylum claim rejected by the Home Office.

Those entering the UK illegally should be refused legal aid and quickly deported. Illegal migrants should not be free to roam the streets and be housed in hotels, but put into old army barracks or even tents on Dartmoor and not allowed to leave. This government and previous ones have been far too soft and out of touch with public opinion. Time to get tough.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Breaching rights

The European Convention on Human Rights, with its associated court, is one of the great achievements of the immediate post Second World War years. Forty-six countries, right across Europe, are signed up (the current exceptions are Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan). It is a key bulwark against a return to the appalling populist prejudice and hate that infected parts of Europe in the 1930s.

Article 6 of the Convention explicitly protects the right to fair civil court hearings, as well as fair criminal trials. When the UK Supreme Court considered the position of trans people in the Equality Act, they took evidence from five anti-trans organisations. But they didn't hear from a single trans person or organisation. Two trans lawyers, eminently qualified, including the former judge Victoria McCloud, applied to be heard, but were refused. On the face of it, a potential breach of article 6.

Article 8 is the right to a private life – the courts have ruled multiple times that outing a trans person can be a breach of that right, but that's exactly what the Supreme Court's ruling is doing. Trans people up and down the country are being told they will now be treated publicly as their “biological sex”, and are being challenged and harassed over what their gender is.

Victoria McCloud's challenge at the European Court may or may not succeed. But even if you disagree with her case, suggesting that therefore the UK should withdraw from the Convention, as John McLellan does (Perspective, 21 August), really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Shut public purse

Yet another gender-connected court case is being raised against the SNP's Scottish administration. Again, they appear to feel it necessary to go through the motions of defending what many would say is the indefensible.

The horrendous legal expenses – £406 million in the past three years alone – will be picked up once more by taxpayers. Every case they have fought they have lost. John Swinney says he is unconcerned. He would be. Not so Scottish taxpayers who have to pick up the bills.

Surely it is time the SNP and/or the ministers involved in the decisions causing the problems and resultant court cases be charged personally for the legal costs and not the already overburdened public purse.

Alexander McKay, 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.