Readers' Letters: Writers have a moral obligation to protest against injustice

The problem is that like sport, education, retail, pensions, and indeed, every facet of life, literary festivals are deeply, uncomfortably and unmistakably political. Indeed, anywhere individuals or organisations invest or spend is part of a consumerist, capitalist machine that has the power to deprive people of their livelihoods and, frequently, their lives. As a writer, Ms Dalgety should knowsomething of how capitalism and white supremacy work, rather than simply where to place a semi-colon, or the finer details of the Oxford comma. The job of a writer is to investigate, to look beyond, and to enter a zone of discomfort that challenges their thinking.

The good writer lives with a curious, interrogative mind, rich with imagination and insight. A good writer, imagining the world beyond their own life, sees the 186 per cent increase in hate crime against transgender people (Home Office Statistics, 2018-2023) and baulks at it. She dissects the media narrative about trans women, and devours research and literature written about or by trans people, until she understands it is nothing more than a moral panic; a bogeyman fantasy. The good writer consumes books, podcasts and research on the history of Israel and Palestine. She knows the colonisation of Palestine began in earnest in 2017 as part of a murderous, settler-colonialist project.

The good writer sees temperatures in excess of 50 degrees in the global south; she sees predictions of 14.5 million deaths worldwide by 2050. She knows that ecocide and genocide are part of one and the same system of perpetual, capitalist injustice. She wants words to become action and for action to be screamed as visceral words.

So no Susan, the writers who oppose Baillie Gifford are not petty, they are just doing what writers were born to do, what they are morally obliged to do, and what they should live to do.

Rosie Heptonstall, Glasgow

Independent minds

In 2014, 45 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted for independence. The Scotsman reports: “SNP dealt blow as poll shows majority believe no progress made on independence case since referendum” (2 June), yet 55 per cent think the case is as strong or stronger.

As an SNP member, I don’t think the party has done enough to make the case for independence over the last decade. In contrast to Scottish Tories leader Douglas Ross’s ad nauseous mantra, the SNP seems to me to have been preoccupied by running the country, not by independence. In any case, without preoccupation on the part of advocates it is unlikely that any of the major social movements, from ending slavery to universal suffrage, would have had success.

It seems, therefore, that independence has largely been making the case for itself. The spectacle of misrule from Westminster may have finally put to bed the idea that we might, this side of the Border, not be quite as capable of those that side of running things. People may be increasingly realising that the densely populated South East of the UK, which due to its ever-enlarging population has a more and more dominant say in how we are all governed, has concerns and interests we don’t share. Immigration is the obvious case in point, with depopulating areas of Scotland crying out for an influx of young people and the Glasgow deportation protests and the Brexit vote demonstrating the differences in popular feeling.

We should move on from questions as to how large numbers of Scots were left impoverished in the 1980s while oil revenues were invested elsewhere, to who will control Scotland’s abundant natural energy reserves in the future – another case of conflicting interests around which Keir Starmer’s energy hub proposals are not reassuring.

The Savanta poll suggests that dissatisfaction with the constitutional settlement is only growing. The case continues to strengthen. With every seat they win in the coming election, especially if it is at the expense of a massive Labour majority in Westminster, the SNP can promote that case and, with a little more preoccupation, it can be successful.

Barbara McPake, North Berwick, East Lothian

Good performance

Perhaps understandably, living in England Brian Barbour (Letters, 4 June) seems to lack an equitable understanding of the relative performances of the Scottish and UK Governments, although a General Election is about what Scottish MPs can achieve at Westminster for the people of Scotland.

It is no coincidence that PISA scores have dropped across the UK (lowest scores in maths and science since 2006), with Labour-run Wales at the bottom of the UK table in all three measures (includes reading), but Scotland has adopted the less test-focused approach of Curriculum for Excellence, which is endorsed by the OECD and which has resulted in a record high 95.9 per cent of school-leavers reaching positive destinations.

Even ignoring benefits available in Scotland such as free prescriptions and free personal care for the elderly, NHS performance is better in Scotland (with more doctors and nurses per head of population) on nearly every directly comparable measure. Local government services are struggling across the UK but in England a number of councils such as Birmingham and Northumberland (Mr Barbour’s county) are effectively bankrupt.

Recorded crime in Scotland is at its lowest levels since 1974, and not only have the Scottish Government successfully lifted an estimated 100,000 children out of poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2023) there are no longer any areas of Scotland on the list of the 25 most deprived areas in the UK.

Of course, these relative achievements have been accomplished in spite of the UK Government-inflicted austerity, Brexit and cost-of-living crisis (that Scottish MPs at Westminster have effectively been powerless to prevent) and represent why the Scottish parliament needs more powers to progress the Scottish economy further and to deliver the fairer and more egalitarian society that most Scots desire.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Bad comparisons

Malcolm Parkin (Letters, 31 May) implies serious financial control failure by Labour, both under the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown government and under the pre-1979 Callaghan government. For the former he quotes national debt rising from £350 billion in 1997 to nearly £900bn in 2010. Of course, he avoids comparison with the Conservatives’ subsequent record of debt rising very, very much more, from £883bn to the present £2386.3bn.

Needless to say, to anyone properly familiar with the backgrounds to these sets of figures the bases of comparison are not fair to either. Labour had the 2008 financial crash to deal with, with its roots in banking deregulation in the USA under Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and in the UK under Margaret Thatcher keeping up with Reagan with her banking de-regulatory “big bang” in 1986. Conservatives have had to deal with Covid and international oil pricing and foreign wars.

In 2007, before the crash, debt under Brown as a percentage of GDP (the proper measure) had fallen slightly in 2007 from the level that he had inherited in 1997. He was properly known as “prudent”, although in my view he was foolish in his "light touch” on banking regulation. Conservatives want it to be forgotten that they complained that it wasn’t light enough!

As for James Callaghan’s troubles with the IMF and with inflation, both had their roots very much in the Conservative Chancellor Anthony Barber’s foolish “dash for growth”. That is well known. Moreover, the Conservatives themselves already had form with the IMF, having had to seek a bail-out loan from it under Harold Macmillan.

Yes, be careful what you vote for, but also be very careful what you believe.

Duncan Clark, Edinburgh

Enough is enough

Longtime readers of The Scotsman will have read my letters over the years bewailing the fact there have been no wind farms built in England since 2012 when power was given back to the councils, compared to the ongoing saturation here in Scotland. A government website in May stated not much has changed in England since the planning rules were altered in 2023. Meanwhile, I read on the web, Scotland has 4,464 turbines while England has 1,999, Northern Ireland 1302 and Wales 998, all onshore.

The SNP adopted the Greens’ manifesto in framing the New National Planning Framework 4 which has made it an even more open door to deveopers all over Scotland. Only two National Parks and National Scenic Areas are to be fully protected.

One prime example is the Torfichen application, 18 turbines 180m high on the Moorfoot Scarp within sight of the World Heritage site of Edinburgh and the beautiful Pentland Hills. A few miles away there is no decision on Cloich Forest wind farm application on hills above the Peebles tourist route.

Isn't it about time this policy of vandalism is discussed now the SNP/Greens pact is dissolved? The Greens only won 4.7 per cent of the total vote so why should 95.3 per cent of voters be left with a policy for which they did not vote?

Celia Hobbs, Penicuik, Midlothian

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.