Readers' Letters: Thinly veiled suggestion Scots support Argentina was an insult
Readers reckon SNP MSP was sneakily asking suggesting Scots supported Argentina in match against England
Using the pretext of an agreement by Argentina to protect Scotch whisky, an SNP MSP urged Scots to “rejoice with our Argentinian friends this evening” before yesterday’s World Cup match between England and Argentina.
It should be noted that the date of the match was not an anniversary of this agreement and that the Argentine government has urged Falklands Islanders to “go back to England”. Most Falklanders are actually of Scots descent and they live on islands which had no native population to displace. They also wish to remain British, like us. Argentinians are largely a mixture of Spanish settlers whose takeover of lands previously owned by native Amerinds was brutal and also, later on, of Italians. General Galtieri, who ordered the 1982 invasion of the Falklands, was descended from the latter. It is a profound disgrace for anyone to suggest Scots should support a foreign team whose government attacked and occupied our islands to which they have no claim.
Many Scots died in the recovery of the Falklands from a fascist occupation. Any suggestion that Scots should support a team which still claims these islands is utterly, totally and completely unacceptable.
The MSP responsible must apologise to the families on both sides of the border whose loved ones died freeing the Falklands.
Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh
Put glass down
If what I hear is true, the SNP is really making itself look ridiculous! How can they boast that Scotland is a tolerant, inclusive and welcoming country, yet ask us to raise a glass to Argentina? Such bigotry in government makes us a laughing stock. Stop this childish nonsense and try to do your job.
Liz Towns, Edinburgh
Muddled thinking
Recent reports quoting the Argentinian Foreign Minister show that with regard to the Falkland Islands and Argentina, he mirrors Vladimir’s Putin’s distortion of history regarding Ukraine and Russia.
While the UK government rightly takes a robust line on Ukraine and the Falklands, it accepts the historical distortions of the Mauritian claim to the Chagos Islands, as Andy Burnham also seems to – despite the warning by Parliament’s intelligence and security committee of the UK facing a “rising and unpredictable threat” from Iran, an ally of Russia and China, in the Indian Ocean, Ukraine and elsewhere.
Moreover, though the Foreign Office’s changed view in now banning Iran’s IRGC will be welcomed in the USA, the effect will be offset by the FO’s Chagos policy. Where is the joined-up thinking in our policy-making?
John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife
Agree to differ
Those on the left wing of politics often claim to have much more righteous and liberal views than anyone else. They respect people of all faiths (except Jewish people, of course), and respect all opinions (except those they disagree with). Only they have the right to be right.
Some in the Labour Party called Conservatives “scum”. Nicola Sturgeon “detested the Tories”, a comment she apparently still stands by. Equality Groups respect everyone, except those who believe biological women born female are women and men born male are men. Amnesty International publishes a report which classed a sexual violence support centre set up by JK Rowling in Edinburgh as "anti-rights", ironically perhaps in the belief that sexual violence victims don’t have rights, although the report was later withdrawn and “regretted”. Too late, as the damage had already been done.
Anyone who disagrees with these respectful individuals or parties is subjected to accusations of being racist, or sexist, or anti-rights, or worse. This intolerance is fodder for those of the far left and far right who use violence to promote their views or to prevent others expressing opposing views.
We are supposed to be a civilised society, but ironically, the more liberal we become, the less tolerant we seem to be of the views of others. Can we please get back to respectful politics where we are tolerant of the views of others, where all accept we have a right to our opinions, that others have a right to their opinions, and there are many times we will disagree and disagree strongly, but each of us has a right to express our view without fear?
Then we might be able to have constructive debates about how to give everyone a better future.
Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian
Failed cause
Following the general election the number of SNP MPs at Westminster was drastically reduced to a mere nine. It was hoped that a similar downward trend would occur in the Holyrood elections on 7 May, but alas the SNP remained in power, albeit with a much reduced majority. Just how can this extremist party be ousted from Holyrood?
As media reports have testified for some considerable time, there is a major problem within the SNP. It has had more than its share of scandals, criminal activities and subterfuge.
And there seems to be no ending to such happenings. Many folks like myself, who regard themselves as loyal to Scotland's history and culture, still accept the fact that we are part of a Union which has been successful for over 300 years.
At Westminster we have the government which is responsible for all key areas – the Economy, with the Bank of England as a central bank; Defence; the Foreign Office and the Home Office, while at Holyrood we are constantly faced with debates designed to weaken the entire 300-plus year old Constitution.
How dare First Minister John Swinney and his SNP cohort attempt to undermine the UK, a nation which has withstood many attempts by adversaries to undermine its global position, without success.
At the end of the day it is the SNP which is a failed cause!
Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife
Serious Binface
Similar to the way Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were an all-too realistic view of what Westminster politics is actually about, the policy positions of the man behind Count Binface are definitely preferable to those of Reform UK’s Nigel Farage, in my opinion.
Either we stick with the right wing politician or we go for Count Binface, whose position as a parliamentarian would be against Brexit and the folly it has been.
The problem with looking at a caricature it that we miss the serious politician behind it who would do a lot more for Clacton-on-Sea than the person who forced the by-election to avoid scrutiny of his finances.
If Nigel Farage is elected then you get by election number two, whereas if you elect Count Binface you get a politician more serious than his persona.
Peter Ovenstone, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire
Identities crisis
Tim Hopkins (Letters, 15 July) is correct that the Equality Network began as an LGBT organisation, rather than solely as a gay rights one. My substantive point was that it, and other bodies with relatively defined remits, have expanded into more recognisably intersectional enterprises, treating an increasing range of identities and political causes as a single community whose interests necessarily coincide.
The Equality Network’s current strategy speaks for “LGBTQIA+” people, declares coalition-building with women’s, racial, workers’, disability and other movements “crucial”, promises inclusion for identities whether legally protected or not, and devotes around two-fifths of its resources to Scottish Trans. That is considerable institutional and political expansion over the past 29 years.
Amnesty International UK’s recent and hastily withdrawn report on the purported “rise of an anti-rights movement targeting the rights of women and LGBT+ people in the UK” illustrates where such coalition politics can lead. It placed organisations specifically representing LGB people alongside For Women Scotland and Beira’s Place, the women-only support centre for survivors of sexual violence, within its claimed anti-rights “ecosystem”.
Thus, an “LGBT+” framework supposedly representing LGB people was used to characterise LGB organisations, and defenders of women’s sex-based rights, as threats to “LGBT+ rights”.
That contradiction is now breaking into the open: the LGBTQ+ coalition is fracturing under the weight of the conflicts concealed within its own initialism.
Brian Forsyth, Edinburgh
Help neighbours
As an International Business student at the University of Strathclyde and an intern of the Borgen Project, which fights global poverty, I have been learning about the importance of UK overseas aid and the impact it has on communities around the world.
Before this internship, I didn't fully understand how much Official Development Assistance can help people. It supports access to healthcare, education, clean water and emergency relief for those facing poverty, conflict and natural disasters.
It also helps communities build a more stable future rather than relying on short-term support.
I believe the UK should continue supporting overseas aid because it is an investment in long-term progress. By helping communities become stronger and more resilient, it creates opportunities that can benefit future generations.
I hope more people will take a moment to learn about overseas aid and why continued support matters.
Nikola Fularczyk, Stirling
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, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.