Readers' letters: Personal values don't apply in international relationships

It must be recognised that Trump was elected with a strong mandate by US citizens and he represents that nation. Even although he may think it is, the state visit is not a personal recognition of him; rather it is to maintain a state-to-state relationship with the most powerful and dominant nation on earth.

To see that alignment of values is not a criterion upon which an invitation to a state visit depends one need only look at the list of countries whose leaders participated in the 17 state visits which have taken place over the last 20 years . A significant number of these were accorded to countries where there is a democratic deficit and ethical concerns, including repressive regimes with little respect for human rights. Examples include China (2005 and 2015), Indonesia (2005), Jordan (2018) and Qatar (2024).

While on a personal level it is quite appropriate to distance oneself from people whose values are the fundamental opposite of your own, in the world of international diplomacy and statesmanship different considerations apply.

George Rennie, Inverness

People power

It is not shameful to humour the criminal who runs America with a state visit. It is an opportunity to confront him with massive solidarity at every turn for Ukraine and President Zelensky. Soft power has one purpose, people power another.

Tim Cox, Bern, Switzerland

A line crossed

I should like to add my voice to Doug Morrison's plea (Letters, 4 March) that the proposed invitation to Donald Trump for a state visit be rescinded. Last Friday, in the Oval Office, a line was crossed from which there is no return.

President Trump professes to be aligned to both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, as if they were equally responsible for the continuing catastrophe that is the war in Ukraine. Worse still, if pushed, his inclination tends towards Putin.

Trump has made it all too clear that he will not contribute to any backup for Europe’s efforts towards a peace deal. In fact, he has dismissed it as showing “weakness towards Putin” on the part of Europe.

Any surviving remnants of a one-sided special relationship between the UK and America cannot survive Trump’s erratic presidency. Rescinding the state visit would send him a clear message that he is not welcome, and reflect our deep revulsion at the very thought.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Spider-Man

By betraying Ukraine to the murderous dictator Putin, Donald Trump has turned on its head the greatest single moral injunction in all of American pop culture. Now with great power comes great irresponsibility.

Mark Boyle, Johnstone, Renfrewshire

Big questions

When Donald Trump demands “our money back” does he mean after the unpaid investors and/or suppliers in his bankrupt companies get theirs back?

When JD Vance demands non-public “diplomacy” does he mean similar to Trump’s very public demand for Greenland, and for Canada to be the 51st state?

Why cannot they give a guarantee backstop as requested, since – if they trust Putin as they assert – it will never have to be implemented?

Conversely, have they never thought that if Putin died tomorrow, he might well be replaced by someone less worthy of their trust?

John Birkett, St Andrews, Fife

Bending the knee

Given Trump’s view of the world and Ukraine in particular, he presumably won’t mind if China invades Taiwan and seizes the territory, or if Iran invades Israel and does likewise.

After all, they asked for it, didn’t they? They didn’t bend their knee respectfully to their powerful neighbour, concede land, hand over their resources, renounce their sovereignty.

Taiwan, arguably, is historically part of China and Israel is an invention of the 20th century and certainly never until then an independent state. Ukraine, on the other hand, existed long before Russia as a state even appeared on the map.

But I am not holding my breath…

Trevor Rigg, Edinburgh

Starmer’s tightrope

Sir Kier Starmer is dragging his country and mine toward the edge of a precipice over which he is trying to walk a tightrope.

While committing his ground forces to support a war against Russia on one hand, on the other he insists on increased spending on nuclear weapons, calling them a “deterrent”. If Starmer’s “coalition of the willing” backs Russia into a corner we may well find out what “nuclear deterrent” really means.

Now is the time to get US-controlled nuclear weapons out of Scotland and reallocate the resources to fit-for-purpose defence forces, with the surplus being used for projects that advance social justice.

The war between Russia and Ukraine must not fool Scots into believing that we can be a part of a Union that will “make Britain great again”. Starmer will paint a target on our backs. I see none of the respect he promised to Scotland following his election. I believe the only hope we have of getting any respect from Westminster is to become an independent player on the global stage advocating for global social justice modelled on our own aspirations. Let’s go in that direction now before we run out of time.

Ni Holmes, St Andrews, Fife

Faith in future

Back in the time of Tony Blair we took a decision to depart from our “Britishness” and be a multi-cultural country, perhaps leading to a desire for “Scottishness” and “Welshness” in response! A few years ago, we apparently decided that we no longer needed God and thus departed from our notions of “duties” to others in favour of the importance of self. This appears to have led to a widening gulf between ordinary citizens and the extremely wealthy.

This sense of the importance of self and the accompanying rise in populism in politics has, I suggest, led to an increase in the number of “extreme” leaders in many countries and a replacement of active concern for troubles across the world. In truth, we play politics with those dying in Ukraine – drip feeding them enough to keep the fighting going but insufficient to win.

Can we therefore complain when a world so-called leader decides his best interest is alongside a figure branded a dictator and war criminal by most of the West unless he gets a suitable reward (bribe) for his “support”.

Can we be surprised that an administration sees the symbolic wearing of battle fatigues in support of brave fighters as an insult to the Oval Office but sees nothing disrespectful in his rich ally wearing a T-shirt and cap (which he refuses to take off); though, I suppose, we should be grateful he didn’t bring his chainsaw.

If we are still of a mind to abandon our culture and rely on self rather than our Creator, then let us be prepared to pay the cost in terms of (i) increasing finance to pay for our defence, and (ii) our eternal future.

James Watson, Dunbar, East Lothian

Ed’s doomed

The UK Government is being forced to turn its back on wealth-devouring “green” policies – the gains from which in any case are at the very least, questionable – in order to grow the economy and thereby provide the cash to keep Europe free from the very real threat of a world war. That is justified and more than reasonable.

Apparently, Energy and Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband faces the sack in the Prime Minister’s planned reshuffle as part of the required restructuring. I fear few will lament his going, should it come. Mr Miliband is said to have objected to the decision to cut aid spending and thereby boost the defence budget by £6bn in real terms.

Perhaps he will go on principle before he is pushed.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Off target

The Conservative government introduced Draconian electric vehicle targets for the motor industry. For 2024 it was that at least 22 per cent of new cars sold had to be electric and for vans it was ten per cent. For 2025 this was raised to 28 per cent for cars and 16 for vans. These targets will rise year until 2035 when it will be 100 per cent. The fines for every vehicle short of target was £15,000 to £18,000. Now the manufacturer Stellantis is closing its Vauxhall plant in Luton in April. BMW is pulling the plug on a £600 million upgrade of its plant in Cowley. The Unite Union has warned of tens of thousands of job losses if these EV targets are not revised or cancelled.

The Labour government should immediately blame the Conservatives and reduce targets and fines to production targets agreed as achievable by the motor industry.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow, West Lothian

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.