Open your eyes and you'll see what a disaster the UK is

There is not one single English public service that is performing better than it was in 2010. The NHS is in crisis with even longer waiting lists than are being experienced here in Scotland while several health trusts are under investigation for the needless deaths of patients including babies; the care service is on the point of collapse with hundreds of hospital patients unable to be discharged. The heavily-subsidised privatised English water companies pay out millions to their shareholders while pumping out raw sewage into the rivers, lakes and the sea. By its own admission the Westminster Government has admitted that the immigration system is broken. With thousands of migrants waiting to be processed various sectors of the UK economy, especially here in Scotland, are desperately short of labour. Can we believe that things will improve for Scotland with a Labour government?

Added to the charge sheet is the disaster that is Brexit. Britain's departure from the European Union has cost the economy some £140 billion so far, with an economic output of 6% less than if the UK had remained in the EU, according to a report by Cambridge Econometrics. The average Briton was nearly £2,000 worse off in 2023 because of Brexit. Yes, the Calmac ferries are a serious embarrassment for the Scottish Government but the money committed is small change compared to the huge sums squandered by Westminster on HS2 and the MoD’s Ajax Armoured Vehicle Programme. While billions have been spent on improving the infrastructure of London and the south-east of England, Scotland’s motorway system ends at Perth while we have just a single-track rail line connecting Perth with Inverness. Meanwhile the National Debt, which now stands in excess of £3 trillion, is increasing by £5,000 every second. It is estimated that the servicing of this debt is costing each of us £2,000 a year. This eye-watering burden will be inherited by our children and our grandchildren. I could go on and I haven’t even mentioned Horizon nor the infected blood transfusion scandals.

Eric Melvin, Edinburgh.

READ MORE: Remnants of the Labour left should have the courage to leave

READ MORE: Take off the blinkers: how can anyone vote for the SNP?

READ MORE: Israel's actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide

The SNP's Willy Wonka experience

NEIL Mackay's 'j'accuse' moment re the disconnect between the SNP's rhetoric and the reality of modern Scotland ("Time to wake up: the SNP is conning us on independence", The Herald, June 4) is a welcome moment of candour. And I say that as a one-time Yes voter, totally scunnered with all politics now, both here in Scotland and in the UK. But I would question his conjuring analogy; after all, at least conjurors, when asking us to suspend disbelief, can delight, surprise and entertain in equal measure. Then the show is over. But this is no mere show. There's far more at stake.

We are dealing with everyday lives here. And to ask, sincerely and in good faith, how an independent Scotland would deal with challenging realities within this ugly world of compromises, cannot or should not be wheesht'd away by partisan assertions, airy projections and passionate identity politics. The hard truth of the matter is, there is no magic wand to fix the problems that blight economies, societies and nations the world over; easy answers wrapped in flags, of any colour, just won't cut it.

In that respect, while I still think it perfectly reasonable to believe in principle that Scottish sovereignty is blighted by a democratic deficit within the UK, and that a vote for independence is a remedy to that, to conflate such a vote with the magical summoning of a soi-disant "progressive" Scotland cured of all its ills is, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, outright dishonesty. You need to level with people - with maturity, a listening ear, and an acceptance that your vision has downsides not all are willing to readily indulge.

So, sorry Mr Mackay, I regret to say that your conjuring analogy falls short. This is not the awe-inspiring work of a Blane or a Houdini. For me, this is more akin to Glasgow's now-infamous Willy Wonka experience: the promise of a world of wonder, but with the very real prospect of a thoroughly disenchanting denouement in reality. And no amount of "believing in Scotland" can magic that all away.

Colin Montgomery, Edinburgh.

Left-wing approach will not work

ISOBEL Lindsay's letter (June 4) is typical of a type that appears every election time: the unsupported argument that Labour is not left-wing enough and people are crying out for socialism.

What Ms Lindsay and others amongst your letter writers do not seem to appreciate is that, as Keir Starmer rightly points out, most people are neither right-wing nor left-wing. What they want is not socialism, democratic or otherwise, but a mixed economy that works for them and their families. In this sense, the old cry of the left, "are we here to do what the Tories do, but do it better?", can be answered with a firm "yes". Labour is there to repair the economy that the Tories have broken, and to restore the virtuous circle whereby effective, efficient and equitable public services and infrastructure support profitable industries and well-paid jobs, resulting in government revenues to invest in those public services.

No-one will deny that we are currently a long way from this model. The fact is that Labour in government will need to establish its credentials for economic management in the eyes of markets and institutions which are still sceptical about the UK after the Truss-Kwarteng debacle. It is going to be a long road back, but we have to start where we are. Anything else is deluded, above all that there is a "left-wing" alternative that would not sacrifice economic credibility and cause greater damage to the finances of working people.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Keir Starmer has a hard task ahead (Image: PA)

This is not unlike genocide

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, June 4) claims that Israel is not pursuing genocide in Gaza. Well, if it’s not genocide as per the dictionary, it is certainly something very similar. There is certainly no doubt that Israel, in its aim to eradicate Hamas, has razed most of Gaza and killed over 36,000 individuals, mostly civilians. Amidst this death toll we’ve had the unfortunate “mistakes” where aid workers travelling together in cars have been killed and a tented village was set alight by missiles intended for terrorists. Are these “inevitable sacrifices”? They could have easily been avoided.

Mr Fitzpatrick mentions the word “war” in regard to Gaza. War usually suggests a conflict between two armed nations. In this case it is the might of US-backed Israel with its tanks, aircraft and trained soldiers against a terrorist organisation with rockets and drones; quite a one-sided conflict I’d suggest. A comparison is made with the Allied air attacks on Normandy around the time of the invasion of France. Strangely there is no mention of the word “war” here, yet this was the Second World War and a decision taken knowing there would be many civilian casualties, but a decision taken for the “greater good”: to end the war in Europe.

After the shocking number of military deaths during the First World War, things changed during the Second World War due to the aerial might of Germany and the Allied forces. Huge civilian losses were suffered during the Blitzkrieg bombing campaign against Britain, the bombing of Dresden and worst of all, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indiscriminate killing of many innocent people.

One final thought: if the UK Government had adopted the same tactics to those being used by Israel against members of the IRA during the Northern Ireland conflict, can you imagine how many more casualties and destroyed communities there could have been?

Brian Watt, Edinburgh.

• ALAN Fitzpatrick is wrong to make a comparison between Israel’s bombing of Palestinian civilians and the Allied bombing of French civilians in 1944. The flaw is that the Allied actions were designed to benefit the French population by liberating them from an enemy and the Israeli actions are not.

He also says that Israel is not guilty of genocide as it is not trying to exterminate the Palestinians. My dictionary defines genocide as “ killing an ethnic group” rather than exterminating a group. Your readers can decide whether the current Israeli actions qualify as genocide.

Sam Craig, Glasgow.