Readers' letters: It's time to accept that the world has changed

America under Donald Trump is not to be relied upon, a reader says (Picture: AP/Mark Schiefelbein)

For more than 80 years the driving motif in British foreign policy, overriding both Commonwealth and Europe, has been to stay close to the United States.

This served us well through the Cold War when we both feared the USSR and Britain had something to offer in military capability, bases and the like, while America contributed the only convincing nuclear capability. The price was, of course, that we were not free to pick our own friends but were forced to follow America’s lead. Thus we had to play along with Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians and American demonisation of Iran once it threw off its exploitative monarchy, its fear of a resurgent China and its futile attempts to impose its will on countries like Afghanistan.

Trump has brought a harsh smack of reality, despite Starmer cringing on television with an invitation which clearly meant nothing to its recipient, who instead seems to see the world as an oyster for him to share with the former mutual enemy, Russia. His contempt for Britain, and indeed Europe, could hardly be more evident.

Old habits die hard, but perhaps we should now make our own choice of friends and foes with regard to our own advantage, to call out Israel as the cause of most of the upheavals in the Arab world, to stop treating China as menacing Britain in any other than the commercial field and to make a serious effort with European partners to mount a convincing defensive posture to Russia that did not depend solely on American support. Expensive, but that is the price of freedom.

James Scott, Edinburgh

Don’t trust Trump

Now it’s down in black and white how Trump and Putin intend to carve up a country’s mineral and other resources in the guise of peace talks. Our world based on the notion of law, order and recognition of democracy is being ripped up.

The proposed carve-up of Ukrainian assets adds a very nasty twist to the war between Putin and Ukraine, adding the gangster antics of Trump using the guise of reparations to into this unjustifiable land-grab by Putin.

It seems obvious that Trump’s America has, at a stroke, removed that great country from being a trusted friend to join the China, Russia, North Korea and Iran grouping that see the democratic West as an area that can be useful until it’s not.

This not the time to pull back from supporting Ukraine. In fact, we should be doubling down on our support and encouraging other like-minded countries to join us.

Our position should be that until Putin accepts a ceasefire immediately, and agrees to free and monitored elections in areas annexed by war any agreements between Trump and Putin are unlawful and will not be acceptable.

Further to this, we should not countenance Trump being someone that we will accept as being trustworthy and fit to invest in assets in our country.

Tony Lewis, Coylton, South Ayrshire

Fact and fiction

As a young man, I enjoyed reading the political novels of Allen Drury, the first of which, Advise and Consent, also enjoyed success as a major film.

As the series of six continued, I became disappointed in the content. Mr Drury appeared to have moved from the recognisable reality of American and international affairs to writing fantasy. The machinations of a megalomaniacal president who split American society, causing violent protests and demonstrations in the streets, were too far-fetched to be taken seriously.

Now, however, I am inclined to reconsider my earlier judgement and to see Mr Drury, not as a fantasist, but as a prophet to whom we should have given more credence.

I was reading the report in the Scotsman (26 March) of the Scottish Police Federation’s annual conference where much was made of police buildings no longer fit for purpose, of general underfunding and reductions in police numbers. To my astonishment, the venue was Trump Turnberry, hardly the most economical choice. I think Mr Drury would have appreciated the irony.

Bill Greenock, Netherlee, East Renfrewshire

Union votes split

Mark Boyle (Letters, 28 March) may be right in claiming that the SNP will win the 2026 Holyrood election, emerging as the largest party. But his claim that the SNP “will cake walk it again” is clearly an exaggeration. After all, the only time the SNP has won a majority of seats was in 2011, with 45 per cent of the vote on a 50 per cent turnout – scarcely the “landslide” it is often claimed to be. Recent polls suggest that the SNP could win 55 seats, well short of a majority. But, helped by the Greens, who have never won a single constituency seat, they could form an administration with a narrow majority.

That is because the pro-UK vote has always been split three ways, and now rampant Reform will split it four ways, even though the pro-UK vote will, as usual, be in a majority. As for “feeling stupid yet”, the only people with cause to feel stupid are those Scots who, stubbornly in the face of SNP rule characterised by incompetence and dishonesty for 19 years (by 2026), will vote for more of the same. That is testimony only to the SNP’s single and singular talent: propaganda based on a lying prospectus and the incitement to resentment of the UK based on faux grievances.

If the SNP ever told the truth about Scotland, its place in the UK and the dire prospects for a separate Scotland, its vote would melt away like snow off a dyke. But of course it won’t.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

No surprise

How many Scots were surprised to read of another SNP target going wrong (“SNP under fire after key child poverty target missed”, Scotsman, 28 March)?

The SNP spin will be that it is better than England and the figures are improving but money will be in short supply in the new financial year. So with grandiose plans but no money something has to give and as an election is coming soon tax rises will not really be an option. As with closing the attainment gap, SNP promises are never delivered. This will be another one. Only when we have realistic politicians in Holyrood will we have even a half chance of solving this problem and many others.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Anti-democratic

There must have been many a loud laugh at Peter Glissov’s letter (March 28) contending that the EU is more democratic than the UK. Mr Glissov maintains that our first-past-the-post system means that we are not democratic because of all the people who don’t vote for the government of the day. Surely, that happens regardless of the system of counting votes? I don't know of any system which allows everyone to have a share in the government, as democracy is all about contending policies and only one can win. Or, can it?

In other systems, such as the one we have in Scotland, or what they have in Israel, or Italy, what happens? You end up with coalitions. What happens in coalitions, as surely as day follows night? You get fudge. Fudge is nice to eat, but not so nice when it comes to squeezing a majority if you get what Israel has: a government where the tail of extremism wags the dog of the majority. You get unstable government.

Remember that we have an administration in Scotland led by an extremist party, namely the SNP. Who did they get into bed with for a majority? The Marxist Greens. Hardly a moderate party.

Mr Glissov criticises the Lords as not being elected. Neither is the US Supreme Court, which is also appointed and which is one of the three wings of Government. In the EU, of course, the Council of Ministers are all appointed, not elected. The EU Commission is also appointed, not elected and the EU Parliament, of which he makes so much, cannot instigate any legislation. It can only vote on matters decided upon by the EU Commission, which is NOT elected. Democratic, Mr Glissov? Ho, ho! as we say at Christmas.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Saturday job

Now that we know the full extent of Labour’s austerity agenda I am intrigued as to how Anas “read my lips” Sarwar will respond. Perhaps he will adopt the tactic employed by Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, on the BBC’s Politics Live programme on Wednesday.

When confronted with his own government’s data which showed that Labour's welfare cuts would take on average, £4,500 away from people receiving PIP (Personal Independence Payments), Mr Jones resorted to an analogy about cutting his childrens’ pocket money by £10 per week but telling them to get a Saturday job, in an effort to suggest that things were not as bad as they seemed!

Alan Woodcock, Dundee

Hoodwinked

The Labour Party swept into power at the general election on a platform of change. However, the Chancellor’s Spring Statement has further reinforced the fact that we are instead seeing a Tory tribute act, delivering slashed public services and seeking to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable.

The Resolution Foundation has noted that lower-income households are forecast to become £500 a year poorer over the next five years because of the Spring Statement. In addition, the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that public services are facing the steepest cuts since 2019.

Those who used their vote last year to propel Labour into office must be feeling rather hoodwinked, seeking change but instead getting enhanced Tory cruelty.

Alex Orr, 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.