Readers' Letters: Exclusion isn't the only response to difficult pupils

Apparently First Minister John Swinney warns that “Excluding disruptive pupils risks pushing them into organised crime” (19 June). That may be so, but there are other alternatives for those young people who, for whatever reason, find mainstream education challenging.

For example, he could look at the opportunities provided by the Spartans Community Foundation in Pilton and their Alternative School for secondary school students, extending now to P6/P7 pupils.

Fiona Garwood, Edinburgh

John Swinney wants every Scottish pupil to have a good educational experience (Picture: Andrew Milligan - Pool/Getty Images)

Deadly games

US President Donald Trump is taking a fortnight to consider whether to join Israel in attacking Iran. Good. It means internal advisers have got to him, perhaps even the Europeans, Canadians and UK. Such a move would be an act of folly.

Remember the run-up to the Iraq war. Labour in power, Tony Blair gives early notice of his support for the “special relationship”. They produce a “dodgy dossier” speaking of “weapons of mass destruction” which probably didn't exist. Blair struts around beside George Bush, looking macho. There is a “victory”, but long-term chaos descends on Iraq, certainly no democracy.

Iran is much bigger than Iraq, and there will be greater chaos. Israel is the immediate major aggressor, and is a client state of the US, which is totally complicit. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced Gaza to ruins, and is starving its population, what remains of it, to death. At the same time, it is a land-grab, with more Israel settlers being facilitated.

Crawford Mackie, Edinburgh

Ban US bombs

Earlier this week, Donald Trump demonstrated his grasp of diplomacy by making an offensive early exit from the G7 meeting in Calgary, presumably rushing home to plan a joint war with Israel against Iran.

Will Britain, in an echo of their actions in joining with the USA to wreck Iraq, now join with the US to wreck Iran? It would seem that this is the intention of our Prime Minister, not wishing to cross his big orange buddy. I sense that the great majority of Scots are not up for waging a new war in the Middle East, just as we do not support Israel in their obliteration of the Palestinians, but what can we do?

Well, we might take journalist Neal Ascherson’s advice, and act as if we are already an independent nation. The USAF regularly use Prestwick to refuel their flights to the Middle east. Might bunker buster bombs be part of the payload of USAF aircraft refuelling at Prestwick? The airport is owned by us, the Scottish people. Our Scottish Government should veto any USAF flights resupplying Israel’s military, and should certainly veto any transit of bunker busters ultimately intended for Iran. This would very much displease Keir Starmer, but would be recognised by right-minded people, nationally and internationally, as a correct and moral action.

Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory

What the X?

So the SNP's Communication's Officer, David Mitchell, asks on X, “why exactly is Scotland is paying for [HS2] when it doesn't even stop in Scotland?”

And yet, the SNP government has stated that it has not contributed any funds to HS2. Indeed, Scotland will receive proportionate Barnett consequentials funding based on that (albeit flawed) investment. So it seems to me that part of Mitchell's role is to miscommunicate in an attempt to provoke groundless outrage amongst dyed-in-the-wool separatists.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Planning language

Words fail me too (Letters, 19 June). The Government has taken its eye off the ball. There is a much more important language than Gaelic or Scots that must be made official so they can pursue their dream of covering Scotland with wind farms – planning language. I doubt SNP MSPs had any idea how, for example, the word “localised” would be used when they passed National Planning Framework 4, based on the manifesto of the Scottish Greens, voted for by 8 per cent of the electorate.

The Government voted for the two National Parks and National Scenic areas to be protected from wind farms but “Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable.”

It seems “localised” in the dictionary means “restrict or assign to a particular place”. Developer language “for planning purposes” means you can insist the effect of 18, 180m high turbines along the Moorfoot Scarp in view of Midlothian, parts of East Lothian and South Edinburgh, including the castle, are localised. It is said significant effects of Torfichen wind farm would reach to Gorebridge 5.6km away, about three and a half miles! Locally three wind farms have already been refused on wider landscape grounds.

Surely the opposite of localised is “widespread”, as used by Nature Scot in their representation “widespread visibility of the turbines from many areas of East Lothian and Midlothian... and would result in adverse cumulative landscape and visual impacts”.

Why should a minority party decide the shape of Scotland to come? Why no strategic plan instead of landowners deciding where wind farms should go? Now the pact has ceased, and the New National Park has been scrapped, this has to be looked at again.

All governments make mistakes but, as we have seen lately, it is how and if they rectify them by which they are judged by the electorate.

Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian

Green dreams

Scotsman writer Paul Wilson will certainly not feature on the Green brigade’s Christmas Card list ("Mighty growth from Scotland's Acorn could prove elusive”, Perspective, 19 June).

He strips away the green film to reveal hard, indisputable facts not the green fiction politicians and those of a green persuasion would have us believe. Soaring electricity costs are costing jobs and are not being replaced by the green jobs so beloved and promised by clueless politicians and their followers.

So where is the cheap electricity we were promised? In the last year wind and solar could only provide 35.8 per cent of our electricity while gas was 29.9, nuclear 14, Drax using trees to produce electricity was 7.3, and imports from Europe totalling 11.5 per cent kept the lights on. The Scottish Government, keen to “lead the world”, said they would achieve net zero by 2045. Yes and pigs can fly. China has set its net zero target as 2060 and India 2070. Both huge maybes.

As Paul Wilson says, the green jobs bonanza that politicians promised for decades has failed to materialise and the UK is shedding jobs by the thousands. At least the Scottish people can show their anger in May 2026 and throw out the green charlatan MSPs and their hoards of mega-expensive climate advisors.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Minimum brains

It appears the SNP administration is still keen on introducing a minimum income guarantee payment of £11,500 to every Scot, whatever their status. This would cost £8 billion-plus. Maybe the nationalists think it a vote-winner. This in spite of every country that has ever tried to implement anything similar finding it to be unworkable and financially disastrous.

An “expert” group was commissioned by SNP ministers in 2021 to work it all out. That alone should send shivers down the Scottish spine.

Be afraid, be very afraid. This could make the ferry fiasco look like a drop in the ocean.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

The Never-Never

Like Nessie, growth remains elusive for this government. The Bank of England has just prioritised control of inflation over any immediate interest rate reduction which could have stimulated growth. But worry not! Grand plans are in hand. Following on the heels of last week’s Spending Review setting out the UK Government’s priorities for the next four years or so, a £725 billion, ten-year infrastructure investment plan for the UK has just been announced. Moreover, the Government’s much awaited Industrial Strategy is imminent.

The devil is always in the detail of big plans and aspirations. Often overlooked, the devil here may lie in the detail of the approval process for capital projects in the public sector. The appraisal techniques that are used are set out in the Treasury’s Green Book – the UK’s Bible of “best practice”. (Scotland has its own version which largely follows this.)

The Chancellor announced that the Green Book is about to be revised and updated, making capital project approvals quicker and easier, so the taxpayer gets a bigger bang for their buck, especially for projects (eg new homes) in areas of deprivation.

However, it is unclear how this will work in practice. One concern relates to the level of analytical rigour required, which may prove over-challenging for parts of the public sector. If that’s true, then, somewhat perversely, Green Book “enhancements” could have the effect of slowing down approval rates, with knock-on effects for the speed at which any related growth impacts are realised.

“Never Never Land” is the fictional domain where children never grow up, or some other imaginary ideal. There is a fear here that despite good intentions, when facing increasingly fierce and uncertain macro-economic headwinds, and the micro-challenge of delivering growth-inducing capital projects on the ground, that the plans and aspirations of this government run the risk of being equally fanciful.

Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns

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.