Readers' Letters: Let's not curse Johnson or Churchill for flippant remarks

I read The Scotsman’s report: “Sweary messages were way to cope with crisis, says expert” (27 January) with interest. Behavioural scientist Professor Steven Yule excuses the swearing, and offhand or flippant remarks made by Scotland's Ministers and advisers, as a “psychological protection” or “black humour” which helped them to cope during Covid when under extreme pressure and having to make very difficult, unprecedented decisions.

Boris Johnson looks at a bust of Winston Churchill in 2021; both have come under fire over comments made while they were prime minister (Picture: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

I think we can all agree with that from our own more trivial pressures, to some extent, and no doubt Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf, Jason Leitch et al will be grateful to Prof Yule.

I trust he, and indeed they too, would also apply it to the remarks reportedly made by Boris Johnson and inevitably damned unequivocally as uncaring or gaffes, such as “let the bodies pile high, they've had a good run”, when as prime minister he was quite rightly trying desperately to avoid another lockdown which he knew would further affect working people adversely, while causing increased damage both to the economy and to the next generation's education in school, colleges and universities – as is now increasingly evident.

It would also apply to WInston Churchill's exasperated response when dealing with the 1943 Bengal famine that the people were “breeding like rabbits”, in the middle of concentrating on his 24/7 prime duties of preventing Japan from invading India and Germany from winning the Battle of the Atlantic, while also starting to plan for D-Day. Churchill’s knee-jerk critics, who have never borne such awesome responsibilities, should bear that in mind.

John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife

Never say die

It was never going to happen. The British Government, in league with big business and the media, were never going to let Scotland go. A second referendum is now a pipe dream. The result of the Independence Referendum in 2014 was far too close for comfort. The UK cannot risk the Faslane submarine base, the RAF bases in the North of Scotland, access to oil and renewable energy, the tax take from the highly successful financial sector, the digital and technology sector and life sciences industry, let alone, tourism and food & drink. Yet they will never admit this. To admit this would highlight just how successful an independent Scotland could be.

Yes, Labour could win the next election, and indeed, as Tommy Sheppard MP said recently, if this happens independence will be “off the table”. Opponents will have successfully kicked the issue into the long grass. But 45 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted to leave the UK in 2014 and we have yet to see a shift in either direction. This was not an aberration. Starmer could win the next General Election and Labour could win in Holyrood, but to beat the SNP does not mean the independence movement is finished. Labour will be presiding over a Scottish nation, half of whom do not want to be in the UK.

Stuart Smith, Aberdeen

Fingers in ears

I must apologise profusely to Stan Grodynski (Letters, 27 January) for not having written the letter he wanted me to write (26 January). Instead of railing against His Majesty’s Government, I highlighted errors in Mr Grodynski’s own previous letter (25 January). He has chosen not to take issue with my corrections but has launched into another anti-UK diatribe.

Perhaps Mr Grodynski is unaware “devolution” assigns to Holyrood responsibility for most of the issues that loom large in Scots’ daily lives, such as education, health, transport, law and order, housing, local government, agriculture etc. Scots might expect their devolved government to focus on these issues rather than on those on which the SNP/Green regime has lavished attention, such as foreign policy and foreign aid, both of which are reserved, to say nothing of the (reserved) constitution, which has two ministries devoted to it.

To govern is to choose, and a devolved government that has savagely cut funds for drug rehabilitation while fattening its cabinet and greatly increasing the number of its MSPs entitled to a ministerial salary has made a clear choice. Spending millions pf pounds of our money on aid to foreign countries when the UK government is already one of the most generous donors of aid is a duplication of our effort. I could mention the money wasted on the Lochaber smelter, BiFab, Prestwick airport, ferries and much more. But Mr Grodynski doesn’t want to hear about these. Westminster-bashing is all that interests him.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Iconic question

The maiden voyage of the new Icon of the Seas – the largest cruise ship in the world – is about to take place. It is a massively impressive ship indeed. Steel cutting for this mammoth vessel started in June 2021: the first step towards a ship that is five times the tonnage of the Titanic. June 2021 is three years after Scotland’s two ferries were due to appear.

Perhaps we might reciprocate with all these countries coming to Scotland to learn how our Government manage success (?) in their many ventures by sending our people abroad to learn how they build ships? Our ferries are about the equivalent of the lifeboats on the Icon.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Brush off

Sky Arts' endless adverts for Landscape Artist Of The Year, in between episodes of The Joy Of Painting, raise an obvious question. Who in their right mind would throw away hours of their lives watching people who couldn't paint their nails after seeing the master, Bob Ross, demonstrate with consummate ease what he says anyone can do in half an hour – except, of course, Sky Arts Landscape Artist Of The Year contestants?

Mark Boyle, Johnstone, Renfrewshire

​

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.