LABOUR Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s reversed position on publishing legal advice regarding arms sales to Israel is of interest only insofar as it is indicative of the Labour government’s propensity for “change”, in that they are evidently willing to follow Starmer’s habit of going back on commitments that he has previously made.

What makes Mr Lammy’s position largely irrelevant is the International Court of Justice ruling last week that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and that the UN Security Council, the General Assembly and all states have an obligation not to recognise the occupation as legal nor “render aid or assistance” toward maintaining Israel’s presence in the occupied territories.

READ MORE: Labour slammed for continuing Israeli arms sales secrecy

Regardless of legal advice to the government in England, the sale of arms to Israel must immediately stop. As the Palestinian envoy at the ICJ, Riyad al-Maliki, said: “No aid. No assistance. No complicity. No money, no arms, no trade ... no actions of any kind to support Israel”.

Scotland needs to get out of the Union with a toxic government in London that has persisted in supporting Israel in spite of what anyone with a shred of humane compassion could see was wrong.

Ni Holmes
St Andrews

XANDER Elliards’ article about watered-down House of Lords reform (Jul 18) highlighted many of the anti-democratic elements of the Lords. It’s unbelievable that we still have special treatment for bishops while no other religious group or secular organisation gets any representation. I agree with Ross Greer’s quote that the proposals in the King’s Speech are only “inconsequential adjustments”’

Seeing party donors being given peerages raises concerns about corruption, and it’s astounding that we as a society still tolerate this.

READ MORE: Anger as Labour water down Lords reforms in King's Speech

I am particularly tired of the Lords being a constant threat to women’s rights. Just before the election, Lord Moylan introduced a “foetal sentience bill”, which was a thinly veiled attempt to chip away at abortion rights, and his latest bill on “abortion complications” is equally concerning.

There is little information on this bill yet, but it reminded me of events in Texas where reports have suggested that various issues are being linked to abortion in a political attempt to portray it as unsafe, using very questionable data collection methods. Yet we have no recourse against this man, or opportunity to vote him out. If Labour’s “reform” means he would be free to continue indefinitely beyond the age of 80, we could still have decades of this man and his anti-abortion agenda.

There must be checks and balances on Westminster, but it’s time this antiquated affront to democracy was consigned to the history books.

Gemma Clark
Paisley

IF there is one “small” change that an incoming government could do, is to take many people out of paying tax and National Insurance on their earnings and or pensions (obviously no NI is due on pension income).

READ MORE: Labour MP says ending two-child benefit cap 'matter of political will'

If the tax and National Insurance threshold was increased reasonably dramatically to, say, around £18000 (£1500 per month, £346 per week) this would allow many more people to take more of their “disposable” income home, possibly avoiding the need for some to claim benefits. If the threshold was the same for employers’ National Insurance contributions, this would cut down the so-called tax on jobs that would benefit many small businesses.

Yes, this would also benefit the richer elements in society, but this could be offset by adjusting the rates of tax to ensure most people would benefit equally.

A relatively simple change to start off with, in my opinion.

Gerry Christie
Hamilton

I DON’T disagree that Kate Forbes’s views are archaic (Mhairi Black: Kate Forbes’ views on gay marriage ‘extreme and archaic’, thenational.scot, Jul 21). However, I do disagree with how these views are framed and reported on.

She did not voluntarily give her views on same-sex marriage or birth out of wedlock; she was asked direct questions and gave truthful answers. It would have given her less grief if she had lied, but in my view had the integrity to tell the truth. She said she would not have voted in favour of gay marriage and with regard to having children out of wedlock, it was not for her.

She has never tried to push these views on others and has said that she would not attempt to push her views on to others. In my book she has done nothing wrong and should not be constantly condemned by any SNP colleagues. For all the bad press Kate Forbes has had from SNP colleagues and media, she has not entered into a slagging match and has remained truthful and professional.

JG
via thenational.scot

IT is a mistake to confuse Kate Forbes’s religious and political views. There are many Christians who share her religious views. All Christians believe Jesus was the son of God and brings salvation to the world. That does not mean that they share exactly the same political views. We are not all as socially or fiscally as conservative as Kate Forbes. Similarly there are many who share her views who do not share her religious views.

While Kate Forbes’s social conservatism may stem from her religious beliefs, it is not the same thing. We should not pretend it is.

Alan Thompson
via thenational.scot

I COMPLETELY agree with John McCann in his letter (Jul 19) about the front page of The National regarding the outcome of the Euros final. The page was meant to be a wee bit tongue in cheek but John hit the nail on the head saying that had England won, we certainly would never have heard the end of it for the next 20 years (or more!).

Carole Downie
Arbroath