DONALD Trump’s election victory serves as a potent reminder for progressive elites worldwide, particularly those here in Scotland, about the dangers of disregarding the everyday concerns of ordinary people. 

Trump’s win wasn’t about endorsing his character—it was a clear rejection of a political class increasingly captivated by ideologies and identity politics that resonate more within elite circles than among the general public. Policies and priorities that seem to be focused on abstract issues, such as debates over multiple gender identities and culture wars, reflect a worrying disconnect from the more tangible issues that affect the day-to-day lives of the majority.

This election result should be a wake-up call for any political movement that claims to represent the people yet fails to address their core concerns.

Read more:

Trump’s appeal was rooted in his promise to prioritise economic security, national identity, and the well-being of working and middle-class communities—issues that many felt had been overlooked in favour of niche ideological battles. When policymakers fixate on ideas that may only hold meaning within certain academic or activist spheres, they risk alienating a large segment of the population who feel that their practical, everyday concerns are being sidelined or dismissed.

Scottish left-wing progressives are on a similar path of disconnection and self-destruction. Despite a long-standing emphasis on social justice and equality, there is an increasing perception that these ideals have become overly academic and disconnected from the concerns of ordinary Scots. People care about stable jobs, affordable living, and accessible healthcare and education. When progressive movements seem more focused on identity politics or symbolic gestures that have little bearing on daily life, they are simply pushing voters away.

Trump’s win underlines the need for politicians to engage with, rather than lecture to, those who may hold different values or concerns. Voters expect their representatives to be attuned to their realities, not preoccupied with abstract debates that seem irrelevant to their lives. The emphasis on hyper-progressive issues can feel alienating to people who are more concerned with the basics: paying bills, accessing good schools, and securing stable work.

If Scotland’s progressives wish to avoid the kind of backlash that transformed American politics, they must start listening to the people they claim to represent. This requires moving beyond virtue-signalling and addressing the practical needs of those outside their own political and social circles. A politics that claims to be inclusive should not ignore the concerns of those who may feel differently about cultural or social issues.

Without such recalibration, Scottish progressives will find themselves facing a similar fate, deservingly losing ground to candidates or movements that are willing to prioritise economic and community stability over fringe ideological battles. Only by genuinely listening and engaging with the electorate’s priorities can they hope to build a more representative, inclusive, and ultimately successful movement. I very much doubt that will happen and these parties and candidates will soon pay the price for ignoring the everyday concerns of the Scottish electorate.
Andrew Johnson, Stirling.

 

Russians can’t forget 1991
OLHA Redchuk’s letter (November 11) is headed “Be under no illusion, Russia is about to expand its empire”.

Interestingly, she gives as examplars of imperial tendencies over the last 30 years conflicts that have taken place in the following countries: Transnistria, Chechnya, Georgia, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

She further says that “Russia remains interested in the colonisation of republics” What do these countries above have in common?  

They were part of the USSR until 1991 when the actions of Gorbachev and Yeltsin directly led to the breakup of the USSR. Countries that were not formerly part of the USSR (e.g. Eastern Europe) have not been attacked.

The year 1991 is considered a disaster by many Russians.

Should we in the West react in the same manner to a Russian attempted annexation of former members of the USSR, compared to a putative invasion by Russia of any non-former USSR states (which has not happened)?
Bruce Walker, Largs, Ayrshire.

 

Hollow boasts of Anas Sarwar
WHILE Anas Sarwar continues to make out that he has the ear of Prime Minister Starmer and thus has influence in UK Government decision-making, especially with regard to reflecting Scottish opinion, the facts tell a different story.

The abolition of the Winter Fuel Allowance for the majority of pensioners, including those in Scotland, due to the sudden late withdrawal of previously allocated funding, and the refusal to remove the ‘two-child cap’ in spite of Labour messaging in Scotland prior to the general election, demonstrate that any such influence is misleadingly only token. 

With the assassinations of those claimed to be the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, the obliteration of most of Gaza and now areas of Lebanon, plus the slaughter of nearly fifty thousand defenceless civilians, there is no longer even the slenderest of excuses for the continued mass killings.

Were the release of the hundred remaining hostages the main priority of the Israeli Government the massacres would cease, Palestinians held in Israeli prisons without trial would be increasingly freed on condition of the release of the hostages, and the huge volume of desperately-needed aid would no longer be prevented from reaching the millions of tragically suffering civilians.  It is not “war” when one side has overwhelming military and intelligence advantage and has wiped out the leadership of its enemy; it is, in effect, calculated annihilation.

If still we hear nothing but platitudes from Starmer over this human catastrophe with no serious immediate action to suspend all weapons-related sales to Israel, as well as military and intelligence support, then the Scottish public will know that the words of London Labour’s puppet in Scotland in continuing to falsely pretend that our views will be acted upon by the UK Government at Westminster are simply a cynical con.      
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian. 

 

Careful what you wish for, LibDems
WHEN I read that the Scottish LibDems’ leader, Alex Cole-Hamilton, intended to block the Scottish Budget because “the public rendered a judgment … that they are not willing to put up with the division caused by independence”, I really wondered on which distant planet he has been living (November 10).

He certainly cannot have been round the doors before the election anything like as much as I and my activist friends were, as the reason given most often for the intention to vote other than SNP, or not to vote at all, was because of the lack of positive action and progress on independence in recent years.

In other words, substantial numbers became ex-supporters because they wanted more attention given to the independence cause.

My personal experience for some time has been that, in fact, more and more folk, whom I met casually in a normal day, have voluntarily commented on my independence badge and mentioned their support. Moreover, I have never yet encountered any of the “division” so often quoted by Unionists, even when a Union supporter is sharing their views.

One friend in particular will never back independence, but we spar about it in friendly fashion, which highly entertains a number of our other friends.  I am actually quite surprised at the level of unprompted support, wherever I go. Does it really constitute “division”, inferring aggression, when one simply disagrees with another’s view?

I suspect that Mr Cole-Hamilton believes that he has found a weapon to hold the SNP government to ransom and make his relatively small group of MSPs appear powerful enough to bring down the government. He would be wise to reflect on the maxim that “he who wields the knife…” and be careful what he wishes for.
P. Davidson, Falkirk.

 

Misery prolonged
DOES anyone still remember when the SNP proudly declared it was “Stronger for Scotland”? Now we are seeing the SNP descend into chaos in an attempt to hold on to power. Both Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf have put their names down to be considered for the next session of Holyrood after the 2026 election despite being somewhat absent from the chamber since their resignations as First Minister.

Not to be outdone, the SNP leader at Westminster, Stephen Flynn, is bending the rules to be an MP and a possible MSP too at the same time by standing for Aberdeen South which already has a sitting SNP MSP, Audrey Nicoll. Scotland has been ill-served for the past 18 years by the SNP but this does not seem to deflect the party from wanting to prolong the misery. Will the voters allow this to happen?
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.