Readers Letters: MSPs waste Parliamentary time with toilet talk

At a time when we have 1 in 9 Scots having to deal with long waits for planned NHS treatment, Scots anxious about the economy, parents’ fears of violence in school and increasing knife crime, this “urgent” issue was debated by MSPs, wasting valuable time where the above issues could have been discussed.

How out of touch are these overpaid individuals who are meant to be representing their constituents on issues that matter to them, not on what toilet they have to use in Holyrood?

How long before we have an urgent question on the lack of paperclips in Mr Harvie’s office?

Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray

No clarity

Murdo Fraser asks why public bodies are not already changing their policies on the use of services by trans people (Perspective, 28 May). The answer is in part that the Supreme Court judgment on this has certainly not brought any clarity. On the one hand we have the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) suggesting that the judgment means that trans people should be barred from using facilities that match their gender identity. On the other hand, we have some very senior lawyers, including a former Supreme Court judge, disagreeing that that is what the judgment requires. And there is already legal action under way to challenge the EHRC's interpretation.

If the EHRC's view prevails, two things are clear however. Firstly, trans people's privacy and safety will be seriously undermined – more so than in any other western European country. Cases about this will be taken through the courts, if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Supreme Court will have completely reversed the clear intention of the UK Parliament in passing the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004. The then government minister, David Lammy, and the opposition's Andrew Selous, explicitly agreed during the Commons debates on the bill that a gender recognition certificate would change a person's sex for the purposes of the law governing the use of separate-sex services. MPs passed the bill on that basis, by 355 votes to 46. If the court's judgment has the effect the EHRC says, the UK Government must act to amend the legislation to restore the will of Parliament as agreed in 2004. Surely Keir Starmer's government cannot intend that the UK's respect for equality and human rights should be so much poorer now than it was 21 years ago?

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Lifeline to lifestyle

May I comment on Neil Anderson’s letter (28 May) in which he fears for Scotland becoming stuck in a cycle of welfare dependency. I was born during the Second World War in an Edinburgh tenement. Afterwards in a one-parent family, money was tight, in fact almost non-existent on occasions, living in a two-room flat. In 1948 the government closed the workhouses, replacing them with a benefit known as National Assistance. My mother reached the point of applying for this benefit, where an official visited us to assess our situation, the end result being an award of £2 per week. This provided a lifeline but not a lifestyle. She was still expected to seek work. Ever since then, as I see the burgeoning social security bill increasing, I realise state support has gone from lifeline to lifestyle. Oh for someone to take this situation in hand and give it a good hard shake, and get back to basic principles of lifeline and not lifestyle.

C Lowson, Fareham, Hants

That’s rich

Ian Petrie almost had me falling out of my chair when I read his letter (28 May). He says Nigel Farage is a threat to democracy. Which party demanded a referendum and promised to abide by the result? The SNP. When the result wasn't to their liking, they demanded a re-run and are still asking today, and will go on asking until we give the “right” answer. Democracy?

Mr Petrie goes on to say Reform is a protest group. What was the SNP before they came to form the government, and to all intents and purposes that is still all they are.

Finally, he says Nigel Farage is on an ego trip with the destination, Downing Street. Wasn't it the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon who was constantly banging on about wanting a seat at the top table in Europe – perhaps an even bigger ego than Farage?

Bruce Proctor, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Bad idea

Jill Stephenson is right to question the benefit of schooling children displaying violent behaviour in mainstream classrooms (Letters, 28 May). The classrooms, where pupils with severe behaviour problems belong, are those in schools staffed with suitably qualified teachers and multi-professional teams where these children can learn responsible behaviour in small groups, flanked by working with the respective parents and social services.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it reflects what used to be common special education practice: providing the protected learning environment of a well-run special school for pupils with profound problems, whether violent behaviour or other issues. This type of school has all but vanished from the spectrum of educational provision thanks to the “presumption of mainstreaming” which cynics may regard as an excuse for saving money.

In reality inclusion only works for children with very moderate behavioural problems. Even then teachers will still need the support of specialised colleagues. In addition, the progress of these children and the learning of their classmates depend on the absence of disruptive factors such as an accumulation of pupils with similar issues within the same classroom.

A sensible, effective education system provides the appropriate place for every child and that includes special schools for those kids who won’t be able to cope with the environment in mainstream schools. From a professional point of view I have long been convinced that the presumption of mainstreaming is a mistake destined to fail a whole generation of children.

Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Wrong solution

Ben Colburn and Joseph Millum write about concerns regarding coercion in relation to assisted suicide, saying that an evidence-based approach helps resolve these concerns (Perspective, 26 May). Yet they present as “evidence” selective testimony from extremists who radically favour extending assisted suicide to ever-increasing increasing categories of people. That is not evidence. Absence of evidence of coercion is not evidence of absence. Evidence was lacking when Harold Shipman killed an estimated 250 people, undetected, between 1971 and 1998. Coercion is not that easy to detect in elderly people who often “don’t want to make a fuss”. Moreover, subtle coercion occurs if you divide up the population between those whose suicides we tolerate and even assist and those whose suicides we strenuously try to prevent – as both the MacArthur Bill and the Leadbeater Bill do. That devalues some lives and places subtle pressure on those who take up many health-based resources to stop being a burden. This is why every disabled group opposes legalising assisted suicide.

And we do have evidence about the harms of assisted suicide and euthanasia. First, being a burden has come above pain in reasons Oregonians opt for assisted suicide in every report since 1998. We know that in Canada a veteran was offered euthanasia when they asked for a wheelchair ramp. We also know that at least nine people suffering from nothing other than autism in the Netherlands have been euthanised because they were lonely and had difficulty making friends. We know that 60 women, mostly young, have had “assisted dying! because they suffer from eating disorders.

MPs north and south of the Border need to examine the evidence for themselves in relation to this complex and troubling issue. If they do, they will reject this simple, neat but wrong solution to the problems of life.

(Prof) Kevin Yuill, CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Glasgow

Run for your money

Politicians really do talk nonsense at times to suit the situation. This week it was the turn of Bridget Phillipson, who said “a Labour government would never have introduced the [two-child benefit] cap”, Is she talking about the same Labour government that unhesitatingly removed the pensioner Winter Fuel Allowance?

And while on the subject of the WFA, let’s not forget that Leader of the House Lucy Powell said last September that this was necessarily withdrawn to “save a run on the pound”. What was different then that Labour now see fit to re-introduce it? Surely nothing to do with voter reactions? Restoring the WFA will cost about £1.5 billion, the two-cap benefit about £3.4 billion. Can we now expect a run on the pound or was Lucy Powell talking nonsense?

Ken Currie, 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.