Letters: Rwanda idea is unworkable, unethical and expensive

According to the US Department of State, there are reports that the Rwandan government has committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, with further documentation of the abuse of detainees by police, as well as arbitrary arrests and detention.

It also notes that the government continued to use arbitrary arrest (or the threat of arbitrary arrest) as a tool to discourage government critics, independent voices, and political opposition members. Local officials and state security forces also continue to detain and imprison some individuals who had previously disagreed with government decisions, or the police.

The proposed Rwanda scheme has thankfully been shown to be unworkable, unethical and indeed highly expensive; par for the course however for a Tory government more interested in dog-whistle politics than reason and compassion.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

We can’t afford illegal migration

Nearly the entire panel and audience of BBC's Question Time on June 29th, including the SNP's Mhairi Black, were critical of the UK government’s plan to send “illegal” migrants to Rwanda. Ms Black declared that a human being cannot be “illegal” and that we have a humanitarian obligation to those fleeing strife. That may be so, but no one offered a credible alternative or pointed out that in Scotland, being classified as a “legal” migrant is no great advantage.

The Scottish Government's Super Sponsor Scheme for displaced Ukrainians was paused in July 2022 for three months because "a temporary suspension is needed to ensure safe accommodation can continue to be provided for those who have already applied and may now travel to Scotland". It is still “paused” 11 months later.

If we cannot provide accommodation, in areas with access to employment, schools, medical, dental and social care, to people arriving under organised legal schemes, how will we do it for those arriving unexpectedly on our shores?

If any members of the apparently virtuous audience and the wider public are willing to offer long-term accommodation in a council area with spare capacity to provide those basic minimum needs, I'm sure the Government will be delighted to oblige under the UK Homes for Ukraine Scheme. With the scarce availability of the minimum criteria, I don't anticipate a surge in offers such that a similar scheme can be extended to all migrants.

What is the SNP's proposal? They routinely complain about needing more workers in Scotland despite the UK having record net inward migration. Perhaps people who have made the effort and taken the risk to come to the UK, by legal means or in a small boat, are reluctant to settle in a region that may later break away.

Mark Openshaw, Aberdeen

Plan B is doomed to failure

There is a lot that is worthy of consideration in Andy Mciver's suggestion that Labour should create a route to independence (“Labour can beat SNP by offering a route to a referendum”, The Herald, June 30). However, for the proposal to be acceptable to the majority who voted No in 2014, the bar would need to be high enough to ensure such a referendum is the settled will and the priority of the Scottish people.

Therefore, I would suggest that if the independence parties have a majority of votes cast in a General Election, the matter should be referred to Holyrood, where two-thirds of MSPs should be required to support a referendum. This would be in line with the current super-majority required for changes in electoral representation; rationally, there can be no argument that it should not be used for the suspension of representative democracy altogether.

The other questions begged by Mr Mciver's article are of course what the threshold should be to overturn the vote of 2014, and how he expects Labour to adopt his proposed new position through its internal policy-making processes. Moreover, there is still little sign that anyone at all in the SNP establishment is willing to accept the political and legal reality that no unilateral route to a second independence referendum currently exists.

I fear that any dialogue on the subject is therefore doomed to failure. But nice try, Andy.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow

Parliament is more than a council

Brian Crystal (Letters, June 29) neglected to point out that the 40% requirement in the 1979 devolution referendum was a wrecking device by the Labour backbencher George Cunningham which required 40% of the total electorate to vote for devolution.

At the time electoral rolls were not regularly updated so those who were dead or incapacitated were effectively counted as a No voter. Many of Labour’s Scottish MPs actively campaigned against devolution but, despite this, the majority of Scots voted for the proposed assembly. In his memoirs James Callaghan placed the blame for the failure to establish devolution firmly with his own backbenchers.

Tony Blair, who stated that the Scottish Parliament would have no more power than a parish council, was more subtle when he added a second criteria of tax-raising powers to the 1997 devolution referendum.

The resultant Scottish executive has evolved into a Scottish government which like other devolved administrations in Europe has regular meetings with EU officials and ministers but without a big brother presence.

Not content with over turning democratic majority decisions by the Scottish Parliament, it transpires that when Humza Yousaf met with EU commission vice-president Maros Sefcovic, the Foreign Secretary ordered the UK’s top ambassador to the EU to sit in on the meeting to check that Mr Yousaf did not talk about matters which are reserved to the UK Government, even if Sefcovic asked. Further evidence that the Tories want to reduce Holyrood to Tony Blair’s parish council.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh

Questions over failed deposit scheme

Now that the Scottish Government has finally seen sense and scrapped the fatally flawed Deposit Return Scheme, I think there are further questions to be asked.

How can Lorna Slater remain in a ministerial position considering the amount of money and jobs she has lost. The Scottish National Investment Bank has lost a cool £9m and you therefore have to ask, would they ever lend Ms Slater any money in future? The answer must be no. So we have a minister with a hugely negative credit rating who will be unable to borrow from the Government's own bank.

Circularity Scotland is now in administration with the likely loss of 90 jobs and £30m in taxpayer funding. In any normal business the leader would be dismissed for such a predictable disaster.

Ms Slater, if she has one iota of integrity, would resign but I suspect that is unlikely as she seems to enjoy all the ministerial trappings. If not, Humza Yousaf should sack her but that is also unlikely as he will hang on to power at all costs.

This SNP/Green administration should hold their heads in collective shame; as always no one is accountable or responsible.

Ian McNair, Cellardyke

Another down side of Brexit

There are so many obvious down sides and harms from Brexit it’s easy to miss other significant negatives that are less obvious.

I have renovated quite a few homes over the last 30 years. The last was in 2018 so after the Leave decision but before the magic Boris Johnson oven-ready deal.

I am in the process of finishing a full renovation now and one thing is clear to me: the post-Brexit UK DIY market is flooded with sub-standard goods, many from China. From screws (the heads regularly snap off) to metal kitchen equipment (scratched, dented, sub-par with spot welds showing through work surfaces and mismatched parts) and so on.

The Tory wet-dream of an EU-free de-regulation economy, releasing us all up from tiresome manufacturing rules and regulations, is really paying off; well, for the profiteers anyhow.

Amanda Baker, Edinburgh

Conflict for new minister for independence

Apparently The Minister for Independence's responsibilities include engagement with people, businesses and other organisations across Scotland on these matters. In the good old days we called that a "conflict of interest".

Peter Wright, West Kilbride