Readers' Letters: Israel/Hamas conflict shows Labour Party has lost its moral compass

This contrasts starkly with Labour's over the top reaction to the Glastonbury chants, to the absurd decision to designate Palestine Action a terrorist group, and the demand by the ridiculous Lisa Nandy that BBC journalists be sacked. I have been a member of the Labour Party for 55 years but it appears that under the current leadership it has completely lost its moral compass.

Robert Cairns, Ceres, Cupar, Fife

All talk

As thousands join to mark the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre (your report, 12 July), the latest missile attack by an Israeli drone on a group of civilians queuing for water is a timely reminder of such terror attacks on civilians. Ten killed including six children, many more die each day in separate attacks on civilian areas. Where is the justification? The West does nothing. Since 27 May, when US/Israeli-managed food distribution points were set up, over 600 have been killed and nearly 5,000 injured. Some describe it as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Israel has decided it can no longer live next to the people of Gaza. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated in May that all of Gaza will come under Israeli military control, while some within his government openly talk about starving its people. He backs Donald Trump’s Riviera plan for a holiday haven for the super rich.

The UN claimed that Israel is “weaponising food aid” while the UK, France and Canada warned of “further concrete actions” if the humanitarian position did not improve. Two months later the situation appears to have deteriorated. Where are these actions and how much longer must this continue? More than 55,000 killed and 120,000 injured yet the West continues to supply Israel with weapons.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Keep out of it

The SNP failed to get independence for Scotland for a very good reason, its arguments were very flawed.

Fast forward to just now and the SNP is calling for a Palestinian state. What due diligence has the SNP done to assure Israelis that this is a safe thing to do? This entire current war is based upon Israel's fears for its own future. In keeping with the rest of us I am sure that the growing casualty toll in Gaza is intolerable, but given Hamas's prime function is to wipe Israel off the map would it not be more helpful to pressurise Hamas to give back all the hostages now rather than facilitate an aggressive state on Israel's border?

Independence for Scotland was never a serious consideration by the SNP even at the height of Nicola Sturgeon's powers, so surely meddling in international affairs is way beyond its pay grade. Why does it not just sort out the Scotland’s ever growing number of SNP-self induced problems instead?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Staying resolute

Each day, more and more Palestinians are murdered in Gaza, a daily trickle dripping to a massacre, now amounting to over 58,000 and rising. Undoubtedly, far too many of those killed are innocent women and children, aid workers and medics. A new word has emerged from the ongoing catastrophe, namely “simaud”, meaning resilience, not giving up. At a time when Palestinians are not welcome in their own homes, they are all the more determined to stay, believing, against all the odds, that their resilience will eventually win the day.

The Israeli government will, hopefully sooner rather than later, have to answer for their continuing war crimes, and face the consequences, not least Benjamin Netanyahu, who has even managed to alienate Donald Trump. One thing is for sure, the Palestinians' simaud will prevail, as the tide of world opinion turns in their favour.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

All or nothing

Susan Dalgety articulates much of what I was thinking about the possibility of increasing the age at which you can get married in Scotland (Perspective, 12 July). One point in particular which she touches on needs to be articulated more – there needs to be consistency in when someone becomes an adult.

There is at best a contradiction, and at worst a hypocrisy, in saying that people aged 16 or 17 cannot get married, yet they are old enough to make adult decisions about how to vote. It needs to be all or nothing to have any credibility.

Andrew Anderson, Forfar, Angus

Be afraid

After the 2026 election, we could face extremists in position of power in Scotland once again, and just think what that could mean.

The Scottish Greens, for most of whose elected members a telephone box full of voters would be a triumph, could once more be in a position to get leading ministerial roles, due to the voting system used by Holyrood. The SNP will need them to cling to power. The others tend to cancel each other out.

Think of the gender obsessions, the off-the-spectrum ideas that would embarrass a Primary Five class, the insane tax and spend policies, these and much more would be on the cards.

A vote for the SNP will bring Green rule to Scotland. Vote SNP and get Ross Greer & Co to decide your future.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

High-risk

Brian Wilson is correct when he says “Betting the house on offshore wind is a high-risk strategy”, and he also advises that “much of the ScotWind programme may never be built because lower cost alternatives may emerge” (Perspective, 11 July).

A balanced energy policy cannot rely on renewables alone, but must retain nuclear and gas for base load electricity generation, with gas for heating – the alternatives are too expensive. Wilson hints at this aspect. Going all electric will increase peak day power generation by three times, which will require additional transmission and distribution lines, and we should also recognise this planet that we live on can cope with a reasonable increase in greenhouse gases.

Cars will be electric, but we must retain hybrids for emergency vehicles, and to make certain of access to remote areas – diesel pick-up trucks and petrol chainsaws are a necessity as well, and don't forget about retaining oil as a feed stock – not imported oil.

The Government needs to plan an energy policy which works for everyone and will also save the planet.

James Macintyre, Linlithgow, West Lothian

EV money

The UK Government (the one scrabbling to close the £22 billion “black hole” in its finances, many of whose politicians parrot the “heat the house or put food on the table” mantra) is poised to announce a £700bn fund to encourage people to buy more electric cars. This includes paying for “infrastructure” such as pavement gullies for cables to enable roadside charging, and grants to make electric vehicles cheaper to buy.

This is seemingly one of the legendary “tough decisions” for a country faced with a huge list of problems including rising poverty, a housing crisis due to poor supply and unaffordable prices, and cuts in care home staff.

The climate is definitely changing, but how will £700 million on a few thousand more electric cars on UK roads solve that when the UK only contributes to 1 per cent of global warming. But we will experience, if we are to believe the forecasts, a massive impact, including floods, due to more rain and higher tides, fires and millions of immigrants fleeing drought and famine.

Economics and public spending is all about choices based on politics, risk and outcomes and £700m – almost certainly borrowed – would be better spent on shoring up public services, building good, cheap homes or planning and constructing proper defences from the predicted problems.

Or is this more about shoring up Ed Miliband's defences and providing an “off ramp” for car manufactures who face a £15,000 fine for every internal combustion car sold above their quota limit?

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Robbed?

After “It’s Scotland’s oil”, now it's “Scotland’s Renewables”. It’s all part of the long-running “we wuz robbed” farce, and the latest exponent is Jim Finlayson (Letters, 14 July).

According to him, “we are here to produce renewable energy and to put up with the costs without deriving any benefit”. Funnily enough, the one thing nationalists never mention in the energy debate is that renewables are heavily subsidised and that the majority of the funding for these subsidies comes from a levy on electricity suppliers which is then passed on to consumers throughout the UK through their electricity bills.

Certainly, Scottish consumers pay for this. But the vast bulk of the subsidies is paid for by consumers in the rest of the UK, some 62 million or more of them. The annual subsidy cost is £25.8bn – almost half of spending on defence – to replace cheap gas with expensive electricity. Since 2002, when subsidies were tiny, the cost to UK households of the subsidies has been almost £8,000 each.

What would happen to the cost of electricity consumed by five million Scots if the subsidies for renewables were slashed by some 62m UK contributions? We certainly would not be better off.

Jill Stephenson, 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.