Readers' Letters: Closing Scottish 'embassies' could avoid SNP mental health cuts

If ever the perfect example of the SNP’s years in office were needed, we now have it. They have painted themselves into a corner with their profligacy and intend to cut £30 million from the Scottish mental health budget (your report, 12 December).

External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson presides over Scotland's 'mini-embassies' around the world (Picture: Fraser Bremner - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Meanwhile Angus Robertson's pretend embassy/jollies overseas budget, of around £30 million also, is apparently sacrosanct and untouched. At the same time our drug deaths remain top of the European, if not world, league.

That no-one in the SNP-Greens can see the connection says all that needs to be said.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Sad state

It's hardly surprising that only two out of five Scots are happy with public services in Scotland. Education is in the doldrums; drug deaths are climbing; a just transition to a low-carbon economy is not being met; and underfunded councils are axing libraries and bus services.

This disturbing news comes from only one edition of The Scotsman and these failures join a catalogue of unfulfilled promises by the SNP/Greens government to make public services better. At the same time First Minister Humza Yousaf can leave it all behind and jet off to join the 70,000 or so delegates flying into “FLOP28” in Dubai, where climate change only matters so long as it doesn't affect the balance sheet.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirlingshire

Toddlers rule

It seems that the main aim of the SNP administration is to act as if they were an independent government and not just a local authority. Money which has been given to them as part of the Barnett formula to be spent in and on Scotland is handed to Libya and Gaza.

The SNP purports to be a separate government by having Christina McKelvie MSP styled “International Development Minister” when its responsibilities are entirely internal. Humza Yousaf flew uninvited to COP28 to meet heads of government who didn't know who he was. He and his party says it maintains Scotland’s reputation as a global leader on tackling climate change. Of course it does. That's why he flew to Dubai, creating lots of CO2 to tell us not to fly anywhere and create CO2. That is not the action of a sensible man who wishes to be seen as a head of government.

It is time something was done about this party which breaks the rules the UK Government has told them to abide by. Instead, like two year-olds, they want to pretend to be grown-ups. Lord Cameron should take action against the provocations of this infantile group, not just talk about it.

John Fraser, Glasgow

Leave the stage

Lord David Cameron is right. The United Kingdom needs to be speaking with one voice on the international stage, especially at this time of great sensitivity with serious, and in many ways, very delicate problems, in the Middle East, Russia and Ukraine, and China and the Far East. The last thing we want is to be putting out different messages from different people, but that is what we are currently doing.

The Scottish Government do not have authority from the people of Scotland to be strutting about the world stage, pretending to be important, and no doubt deliberately contradicting the UK position in order to differentiate themselves.

In recent years we have seen Nicola Sturgeon suggesting no-fly zones in the Ukraine when that would undoubtedly have precipitated a global conflict, Alex Salmond’s schmoozing in China only got us a couple of dud pandas, and now the Scottish Government have been trying to put themselves on a par with the UN by demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. And what exactly is a virtue-signalling politician like Humza Yousaf doing speaking to someone like President Erdogan? Are these the friends that Scotland really wants to have? Other countries will look at all this and wonder why the UK Government puts up with this. It appears as if a devolved administration is out of control, and that undermines our global position, which will ultimately rebound on Scots as well.

The Foreign Secretary is entirely correct to assert himself. Our pretendy parliament needs to be reined in and made to focus on the role that they have been allocated, not by the Westminster parliament, but by people here in Scotland. Wandering the world stage to get away from problems at home should not be allowed. They have to operate within their remit.

Victor Clements, Aberfeldy, Perthshire

COP out

We can imagine that our government is throwing its full weight into opposing the apparent cop-out at COP. But what is UK Climate Minister Graham Stuart up to? He was called away to attend Parliament – presumably to get the precious Rwanda bill through. Saving Rishi Sunak's face is certainly most important to the Tories right now. The tailspin of unresolved factionalism spells likely doom at the election soon to come.

The news from COP28 was that a furious debate was taking place between countries demanding the phasing out of fossil fuels. Every senior delegate was needed to help suggest the compromises between different views.

For this reason the government decision to prioritise a very minor policy in the overall picture of migration to this country is an abjugation of duty and will ensure that no voter who has any concern about our environmental future will lean towards voting for the Tories next time round. With privilege has to come responsibility

Andrew Vass, Edinburgh

Parties pooper

The easiest and simplest way to improve our democracy is to abolish political parties; not by outlawing them but by denying them any official role in elections and parliament. A political party is a coalition of like-minded people seeking to advance their agenda. We neither vote for nor elect a political party. We do vote for a candidate chosen from a list, and the winner is elected our MP – to represent our interests. Parties control their members by blackmail. Any member seeking political advancement must toe the party line – MPs are thereby reduced to puppets. Power is concentrated in a few leaders of the ruling party. This is not democracy.

Elections, parliament and government itself can all work perfectly well without political parties. At election time every candidate would be an independent and free to speak their own mind. On each issue, an MP would be free of the political and moral influence of a party. On each issue, an MP would be free to vote as they think their constituents want them to vote, or, to vote according to their conscience. Voters choose the independent candidate they feel best represents them and do not choose political parties.

There is one final advantage in voting for independent individuals. At the start of each new parliament, MPs begin by electing the government ministers from among themselves. Those ministers then serve parliament. An important advantage of defenestrating political parties is that if ministers lose the confidence of parliament, parliament can replace them without triggering a general election.

Doug Clark, Currie, Midlothian

On that bombshell

Martin O'Gorman has made a grave factual error in his attempt to rebut my assertion regarding the fallacy of deterrence (Letters, 12 December). He states that Ukraine had atomic weapons and “gave them up”. This is not the case; the weapons based on Ukraine's territory were Soviet weapons, just as the weapons in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota are American and do not belong to the individual states. The weapons in Ukraine were controlled by Moscow and thus after the collapse of the Soviet Union then US president Bill Clinton and Ukraine counterpart Leonid Kravchuk held talks in 1993/4 to arrange their physical return to Russia. It will be a great day when similar talks are held to remove Trident/Dreadnought from the Clyde and send them to Portsmouth!

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Chair British CND 1990-93, Edinburgh

A lovely dream

Marjorie Ellis Thompson (Letters, 8 December) is clearly very much in support of nuclear disarmament. Fair enough, everyone would be delighted to see all countries with nuclear weapons agreeing to give them up. However, those of us who live in the real world are aware the likes of Russia, China, North Korea etc are hardly likely to go along with this.

Here are some real world figures for Ms Ellis. In the four years from 1914-1918 and six years from 1939-1945, one million British servicemen were killed, along with 70,000 civilians. In the 78 years since 1945, only 7,190 British servicemen have lost their lives in “small” wars and anti-terrorist campaigns – Korea, Malaya, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan etc. To put these figures even more into perspective, on one day, 1 July 1916, more than 19,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers were killed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme. How can we reconcile the difference between over one million deaths in 31 years, 1914-1945, and just 7,190 in 78 years, 1945-2023? I think most of us know why this is.

Most of us wish to God the nuclear bomb had never been invented. However, it was and we have to live with it. But if the above figures don't illustrate the advantages of a nuclear deterrent, I don't know what can. One thing I do know is that without it, a very large number of men of my own generation would not be around today.

D Mason, 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.