Readers' Letters: Scottish education is not in decline - aye, right

Whisky cream sauce drizzled crumbled shortbread haggis and mackerel Scottish cheddar cheese pizza would be more palatable, and authentic, than the SNP takeaway on the recent Pisa results.

Whatever the reality, the SNP purveyors of propaganda can be relied upon to peddle an alternative. Just think biological and Biblical reality and what the SNP government tried to dish up under the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, which had to be blocked by the UK Government acting as a sensible schoolmaster yielding section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act.

I’m old enough to remember Hughie Green’s Opportunity Knocks TV talent show and I’m also old enough to see how two decades of the SNP (with a little recent help from the Greens) has knocked meaningful opportunity further from the grasp of Scottish schoolchildren.

It was the vision of the great Reformer John Knox to have a school in every parish. His was a great legacy which set the foundation for a whole host of Scottish innovation and invention. Then along comes the SNP and knocks everything over like skittles.

They had us disregard GERS, and now it’s Pisa.

Being so far behind in Reading, Mathematics and Science is not good reading for any Scot. Perhaps that’s the plan? If we become a populace unable to read and think for ourselves then perhaps we will passively sleepwalk along the path of stupidity prepared for us by the Silly Notion Party.

Knox would not have swallowed the SNP takeaway on this. Neither should his bairns.

Steven Welsh, Stornoway

Glimmer of hope

Andy Burnham’s encouraging start as Prime Minister was somewhat marred by Westminster announcing him as PM of “England” and placing “Number 10 North” in Manchester, which is in the lower half of Great Britain. However his energy, insight and ability to connect meaningfully with all sections of society has overcome the above.

Most surprising of all, this genuine and proactive PM, in his recent talks with Scotland's FM, has opened the door to constitutional change. In pledging to deliver further powers to the UK devolved nations, he added that there should be a Scottish independence referendum if there is “clear majority support in Scotland, the same as the process for Irish unification”!

Grant Frazer, Newtonmore, Highland

Fuel to the fire

Andy Burnham has certainly set the cat among the pigeons with his poorly worded comments on any future Scottish independence referendum, not least as evidenced by two letters in The Scotsman yesterday..

Iain Brocklebank argues it is time to act as the people of Scotland elected more pro-independence MPs than ever before. However, what matters in a referendum is votes, and the number of votes for pro-independence parties was significantly lower than the number of votes for pro-union parties, so there is no evidence that the majority of Scots favour independence – quite the opposite, as has been tested time and time again.

In the same edition, Ian Waugh argues that in the event of independence, his state pension would still be paid for either by the rest of the UK, or by the transfer of a lump sum to the Scottish government. Unfortunately, there is no “pot” to transfer as the state pension is unfunded, unlike the personal pension he refers to. As there is no pot, there is no lump sum to transfer since today’s pensions are paid for by today’s taxes, so in an independent Scotland, Scottish taxpayers would need to find the money to pay the state pension in Scotland, and we all know how poor the Scottish government is at spending our money despite the highest level of taxation in the UK. If he thinks that the English taxpayers would happily pay the state pension for Scots after independence, he can dream on.

It is unfortunate Mr Burnham has added fuel to the ashes of independence for that is where the independence dream should sit – in the ashes until the last bit of heat has left, and then be consigned to the bin of history.

Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian

No fund

Ian Waugh is under a serious misapprehension if he believes taxpayers from the rest of the UK would fund his state pension if Scotland became independent. He makes a false analogy between his private pension and his state pension. Typically, contributions in a private pension are paid into a managed fund and the income from the fund is used to pay out pensions.

No such fund exists for the UK state pension. Mr Waugh’s and all present day state pensions are funded out of present day National Insurance contributions. If he thinks NI payers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would fund pensions in an independent Scotland, I respectfully suggest he thinks again.

Robert Cairns, Ceres, Fife

Own goals

Nationalist-inclined contributors Ni Holmes and Ian Waugh (11 and 14 September) score spectacular own goals by describing the debate on pensions problems relating to Scottish independence as “lies”.

As at the time of the 2014 referendum, it is a fact that the beloved EU will insist that cross border pensions have to be immediately fully funded – no more using UK-permitted flexible repair schemes. Paradoxically, the SNP devotion to rejoining the EU would – if achieved – put many Scottish occupational pensioners under the cosh of the EU’s restrictive IORP II Directive if their pensions come from rUK.

So this EU challenge could indeed imperil pension solvency for some Scots as millions would need to be found for the weaker schemes. Some sponsors would be unable to raise additional capital in this scenario.

As regards the state pension, our relatively ageing population would be a higher pension burden on a Scottish GDP, per capita, than for the UK as a whole. A “Triple McLock” would be unlikely. And with over a fifth more State sector employees than England on generous defined benefit schemes, the private sector would again be disproportionately clobbered to support these on “independence”.

Peter Smail, Borthwick, Midlothian

Flawed system

Andy Burnham has indicated his refusal to grant a second Scottish referendum on Independence.

In his defence, though, to counter the Nationalists claim to have a record number of pro-independence MSP's in Holyrood, this was only achieved using a discredited voting system electing 73 SNP/Green MSP's (56 per cent of the seats), despite these parties combined only attracting 40 per cent of the national vote (on a 53 per cent turnout).

Jenny Gilruth has already stated that the Prime Minister would lose a second independence referendum. She should remember that in any such referendum the Scottish electorate will be faced with a straight Yes/No choice on Independence. It is delusional politics to think that a majority Yes vote would be achieved based on the May 2026 election results. The SNP/Greens would not have a flawed electoral system to get them over the 50 per cent threshold.

Alastair Neilson, Edinburgh

Balanced law

Jenny Lindsay writes about the strangely named, but important, Australian court case Tickle v Giggle (Perspective, 14 September). For 25 years, British law was understood as meaning that trans people should be treated as their lived gender identity, except where excluding them was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, a nuanced policy which worked well.

Then, over the past few years, a new organisation raised three court cases about the law, against the Scottish government. It's important to note that none of the cases involved any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour by any trans person. They were judicial reviews of written legislation or policy.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that the detailed wording of the legislation meant the opposite to what parliament had intended.

As a result, for example, deep-voiced and bearded trans men are now told they must not use men's toilets because they are legally “women”. But neither, for obvious reasons, can they use the women's. Some have been excluded from all the toilets at their workplace.

In contrast, the courts in Australia, as in many other democracies, have upheld the more balanced position – good for them.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Stop the AI genie

Science fiction films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, War Games and Terminator anticipated decades ago the chilling possibility of computers posing an existential threat to humanity.

Now, with even industry insiders warning of this technology being an imminent danger to our continued survival, it’s time to act. In a rare detour into the truth, left-wing US Senator Bernie Saunders is actually talking sense when he speaks of banning artificial intelligence. But how realistic is this idea, now the genie’s out of its bottle?

The AI summit hosted by King Charles at Dumfries House is a positive move, although it may already be too late in the day.

While democratic nations could conceivably be persuaded to sign up to some kind of limitation treaty, it’s hard to imagine many of the world’s hostile rogue states passing up the opportunity to use AI for their own sinister purposes.

Martin O’Gorman, 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, 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.