NEIL Mackay rightly predicts that this year is going to be one of extreme division across the world ("Get ready for the new culture war", The Herald, January 9). He asks if "little old Scotland" could do it differently and foresees a clash in the culture war over the conversion therapy bill.

There may not have been such a clash of culture already, had the Government "read the room" regarding many people’s opinions. The lack of popularity of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill was not only due to concern for safe spaces for women. It was about the lack of protection for free speech and concern for the safeguarding of children. If the gender ideology promoters had only pushed for education on self-identity with adults then the bill would not have caused such distaste. But when gender ideology infiltrates primary schools with the idea that young people are to know what is best for themselves; when that ideology attempts to normalise the administration of puberty blockers and surgery which do irreversible harm, then that was really when the culture war was exacerbated. When the public hear of documents from WHO that explain that "sexuality starts at birth" and that nursery-aged children need to be educated about "early childhood masturbation" then the public start to get squeamish.

Mr Mackay’s article makes out that it is religious organisations which would be restrained by the passing of the conversion therapy bill. But in fact, for parents, a conversion therapy bill could mean that a parent who questions, or even simply does not affirm their child’s identity, could be made a criminal. A parent could be criminalised when no abuse takes place. Exploratory therapy, where a child’s gender identity is not confirmed, would also be criminal.

What is forgotten is that the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states: "In the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act, the Secretary of State and education authorities shall have regard to the general principle that, so far as is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure, pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents."

Parents however, do not feel their wishes are considered as they should be.

Poverty in Scotland, the topic discussed in Kevin McKenna's column on the same page ("Time for SNP to ditch their independence pretence", The Herald, January 9) must surely be given more prominence in our consciousness than gender reform. The Scottish Government lost the patience of the people of Scotland when so many hours given to discuss gender reform for a minority of people whose lives are effected by gender dysphoria, could have been given to promote a strategy to help those who as Mr McKenna states, are living in homes with "bedless bedrooms and foodless kitchens".

Indeed the divisions across the world are very much in people’s minds and need much more attention and debate than gender identity. It could be argued that Scotland is demonstrating to the world just how "little" it is, giving so much time in its governing chamber to legislation which far from being progressive is retrogressive and causing division throughout the land.

Irene Munro, Conon Bridge.

Read more: Conversion therapy will be Scotland's next culture war

Success in the poverty fight

KEVIN McKenna claims that the Scottish Government has “failed utterly in lifting our poorest children out of poverty”.

How does he square this with statistics (from the Labour-controlled Welsh Government) showing that in 2020-22 Scotland had 24% of children in poverty, compared with 28% in Wales and 31% in England?

Crucial to this differential is the Scottish Child Payment (SCP) which Professor Morag Traynor (former deputy chair of a Government commission on inequality and poverty) calls “a game-changer”.

Another academic, Oxford Professor Danny Dorling, said the SCP “moves Scotland from being one of the most unequal places to live in Europe for a child to being one of the most equal - in just 12 months”.

Chris Birt of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation referred to the SCP as “a watershed moment” and called on governments and devolved administrations around the UK to learn from the Scottish experience and apply political will and funding to tackle child poverty.

In a developed country, tackling poverty is never a question of affordability, but rather of priorities.

Mary McCabe, Glasgow.

The Herald: The Scottish Child Payment has been described as a game changerThe Scottish Child Payment has been described as a game changer (Image: Newsquest)

The poor man of the UK

I WAS genuinely surprised to read of the First Minister of Scotland calling the UK ''the poor man of Europe'' ("FM Yousaf insists there is ‘no milk and honey’", The Herald, January 9).

The UK he derides in large measure supplied much of his recent generous handouts in the Middle East. This should have given him leeway to extend badly-needed help to the weather victims in Brechin, but it did not. The UK is a leading world economy and is also a major provider of aid for the poorest countries on the planet, including the FM's favourite recipients of aid in the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent.

Perhaps Humza Yousaf can explain why hundreds of thousands of would-be migrants and asylum seekers by-pass our ''rich'' neighbours and risk all to get to the ''poor'' UK. For many decades this ''poor'' country has provided succour to the poor of India, Pakistan, Africa and elsewhere. Most of the incomers are grateful.

In fact, Scotland, under the SNP, is the ''poor man'' of the UK.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

Get our Letter of the Day directly to your inbox.


Indy is now a political tactic

DAVID Bol suggests that to criticise the Scottish Government for continuing to pursue independence is “somewhat daft” (“Cause may be ‘urgent’, but route to indy is in tatters”, The Herald, January 10). Like other commentators he points to the central purpose of the SNP and says we should not be surprised that trying to progress independence “is a central part of government policy”.

Can I therefore play the part of the “daft” laddie in this case and explain why I think the SNP should for now put the pursuit of independence to one side?

Each time we have had a new SNP first minister they have promised to act for all of Scotland, not just those who voted SNP, nor just those who support independence. Also, in every election held in Scotland and the UK over the more than 15 years in which the SNP has been in power, it has set out a prospectus in which it proposes itself as the best-placed party to govern Scotland.

While I know it has not been directly spelt out in SNP manifestos, I believe it is not unreasonable to conclude from these that the right to focus on the pursuit of independence does assume the SNP continues to deliver public services competently across all the devolved powers. Yet over the years the gap between what the SNP promises to do and what it actually delivers has become ever wider. It has established a reputation for failure in essential services, bungling of new initiatives, widespread missed targets and unacceptable cover-ups.

When incompetence becomes the defining feature of the Scottish Government then the pursuit of independence looks less like a proper government policy and more like a party political tactic, using public funds and resources to try to stay in power. I might be “somewhat daft” for believing this, but I suspect many across the political spectrum, including some who support independence, share that opinion.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

Read more: Scottish independence: Let's focus on child poverty instead

Dirty tricks on Labour side

ANDY Stenton (Letters, January 10) comments on your report the previous day that Anas Sarwar has warned party supporters to expect “dirty tricks” from the SNP and the Conservatives in the run-up to the General Election.

Mr Sarwar is quite right, of course, but not averse to encouraging his supporters to give as good as they get. Although he's talking about the forthcoming Westminster election, it provides plenty of opportunities to mislead us simple voters into thinking that voting for Labour will change things at Holyrood.

Peter R Russell (Letters, also January 10) provides a good example. He wants voters to use the General Election to punish the SNP for its coalition with the "minority sect" Green Party. Including the disparaging language, this looks like it comes from the Labour Party's little red book of dirty tricks, justified by Mr Russell’s claim that "in all its forms, democracy is a wonderful thing". I beg to differ but can at least agree with him that the first past the post Westminster electoral system is unfair.

David Bruce, Troon.