Readers' Letters: Sturgeon gave Ukrainian refugees false hope

It seems cruel that Ukrainian refugees, who have already suffered so much, are being used as pawns by Scotland’s First Minister in yet another attempt by her to show up the UK government as less caring andnote-0 advance resentment and unfair comparison.

More specifically, the Scottish Government has suspended its super-sponsor scheme for Ukrainian refugees and is to re-purpose a cruise ship to house more than 700 people to meet demand (your report, 12 July)

Certainly, by allowing Ukrainians to give the name of Scottish Government as sponsor on their visas, more of them have been able to travel more quickly to Scotland rather than to England, where first they have to wait to be matched on social media with sponsors. However, for many Ukrainians, like Afghans before them, who have suffered the terrors of war and the heartbreak of losing their homes, their hopes have been raised by being able to travel to Scotland. Imagine however, their disappointment and despair at being trapped for weeks in hotels or possibly having to live indefinitely in the close confines of a ship!

It would seem that Scotland’s super-sponsor scheme represents yet another unprincipled soundbite from Nicola Sturgeon to boast, as always, that Scotland is doing better than the rest of the UK. Predictably for the SNP, however, inadequate attention has been given to the detailed preparation necessary to make this a reality.

Did First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announce the 'Super-Sponsor' plan for Ukrainian refugees too soon? (Picture: Robert Perry/POOL/AFP/Getty)

It seems unfair and unworkable that responsibility for settling Ukrainian refugees has been delegated from central government to cash-strapped local authorities. At the same time, in embarking on the expensive but very noble and necessary task of providing refugee assistance, the Scottish Government should not forget its responsibility also to its own citizens who are homeless and using food banks because of the grim cost of living crisis.

Sally Gordon-Walker, Edinburgh

Low bar

Yet another SNP master plan hits the rocks. “No caps will be set by Scotland on the numbers of refugees they will welcome.” That was the proud proclamation as they launched their "super" plan to welcome Ukrainians fleeing their country.

Not so long ago, as reports came in of refugees crammed into temporary accommodation for weeks on end, the SNP denied there would be a suspension of the scheme as they floundered through the matching process. Now we learn it has run aground as they resort to "housing" 700 refugees on a repurposed cruise ship and announce – with a little less fanfare – that the scheme will be “paused” for three months, the same length of time the scheme has been running! World-leading targets are their speciality – as is failing to meet them.

You would think that given we have a chaotic UK government constantly distracted by scandal and political infighting the SNP would have a glorious chance to convince the Scottish electorate they can do better. All that they have shown is that they can do things differently. But as with the present case and the census debacle they have failed to do better than Boris Johnson. That's a pretty low bar to set yourself in the first place. Failing to meet it speaks for itself. What Scotland needs is not independence but governments at both Holyrood and Westminster which deliver on their promises.

Colin Hamilton, Edinburgh

Rock hard

I find myself in hearty agreement with John V Lloyd on Keir Starmer’s folly of accepting Brexit as a done deal (Letters, 12 July). Coincidentally, your columnist Alastair Stewart echoes and elaborates on that same analysis (Perspective, same day). The Labour leader’s decision is particularly dispiriting as it maintains the party’s sorry contribution to Brexit under Jeremy Corbyn. It’s often overlooked that Boris alone didn’t “Get it Done”, it was with the silent co-operation and support of the then Labour leader.

After the last Holyrood election, I resigned from the Liberal Democrats over their leader’s risible performance and have seen little improvement under Alex Cole-Hamilton. Keir Starmer’s decision leaves me in the ironic position of the Lib Dems becoming my only option as a committed opponent of independence while aspiring to renewing links with the EU. A rock and a hard place!

Kit Fraser, Dunbar. East Lothian

Resigned?

The Sewel Convention which occasionally demonstrated some respect for democratic principles within these islands was trampled upon by a Tory Government. Yet, the “convention” of Prime Minister’s Resignation Honours appears to be unquestioned, in spite of Boris Johnson breaking the law and presiding over a sleaze-ridden government. How can it be acceptable that a person who is not even trusted by his own MPs gets to stay in power for a further two months courtesy of a privileged faction of those MPs, and can request the monarch bestow more honours on others subject only to the scrutiny of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the honours committee of the Cabinet Office?

This is a man who rammed through a peerage for his friend, Evgeny Lebedev, the son of a former KGB agent, in spite of concerns raised by MI5; a man who is rumoured to be considering having a peerage bestowed on his inappropriately titled “Culture Minister”, Nadine Dorries. The anachronistic House of Lords is in itself an affront to egalitarian representation of the peoples of the UK and should be swiftly consigned to history, but in the meantime surely the Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and smaller parties can at least work together to bleach the dark stain of Resignation Honours from the scorned Westminster parliamentary system masquerading as democracy?

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Awfully foreign

Dougie Mitchell takes issue with Andrea Jenkyns sticking a finger up in the air at some noisy and highly uncomplimentary demonstrators outside Downing Street (Letters, 11 July). A response is hardly surprising.My issue with Ms Jenkyns’ riposte is not so much her reaction as how she made it. Raising a middle finger is a typically Italian reaction and one which Americans have adopted. A correct, British response should be a good old V-sign.It simply shows that even Tories watch too many cowboy films these days. I hope that Central Office will chide her for this misplaced, foreign gesture.Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Cunning plan

I was unable to respond earlier to the article by Dr Richard Dixon since I needed several days to recover from the shock of realising that I actually agreed with him (“Carbon Capture doesn't grab me”,7 July). Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a mythical beast beloved by politicians, climate researchers, climate engineers, those looking for research funds and those on the Climate Gravy Train. As Dr Dixon states, there is no CCS plant in the world which captures and stores all of the CO2.

However I invite Dr Dixon to help me develop my patented idea. We will buy, at a bulk discount, all the fizzy CO2 drinks in plastic bottles and store them down old mine shafts and claim government prize money. After all, if people are willing to finance dropping weights down a mine shaft to produce and store electricity then surely this joint venture merits lots of finance. Another benefit is that the plastic bottles would no longer be available to litter our streets and countryside.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Better off solo

Judging from their initial election pitches, the Tory leadership contenders are even more xenophobic right wing ideologues than Boris Johnson, who merely blustered out whatever came into his head at the time. This is really bad news for the anti-Scottish self-government forces as it will only increase Scotland’s disenchantment with Westminster rule.

British establishment figure Sir Keir Starmer was more at home in the Royal Box at Wimbledon than on the rail workers’ picket line and his opposition, like that of the Lib Dems, to a European single market and freedom of movement is driven by middle England focus groups rather than any concern for Scotland’s economy or the Scottish Parliament’s democratic mandate to have a second independence referendum.

As Scotland exports much more per head than the rest of Britain, we have suffered more from a Brexit we didn’t vote for – it damaged our agriculture, fishing and scientific research sectors and exacerbated recruitment problems in our healthcare and hospitality sectors. Contrary to Jill Stephenson’s outdated claims (Letters, 12 July) an independent Scotland will be welcomed in the EU and even as a member of the EEC or EFTA, we would better off than under the UK’s current trading arrangements.

With our vast natural resources, including energy supply, plus a highly educated workforce, there is no logical reason an independent Scotland can’t match our Scandinavian neighbours by creating a fairer and more prosperous nation.

Mary Thomas Edinburgh

Big claims

I have to wonder if Grant Frazer reads anything other than SNP propaganda when he ends his letter (12 July) with the claim that an independent Scotland would be "welcomed by a world well aware of its proven abilities".

Perhaps he could substantiate this claim by telling us exactly what these proven abilities are? They certainly cannot include the abilities to build ferries, improve education standards, run a sleaze-free government, grow the economy, reduce drug deaths, cope with refugees, improve the NHS, or indeed, to balance their fiscal budget. That's just for starters – I could go on!

GM Lindsay, Kinross, Perth & Kinross

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts. 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. Do not send letters submitted elsewhere. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions