Boris Johnson can’t stop telling untruths ... this time on Russian money

Last week it was employment figures, this week it's about refugees – “UK has taken in more in the last five years than any other European country" ... LIE. Germany took in more in ONE year.

Giving the Russian banks time to get their money out before sanctions was certainly worth the £44,000 given by the chair of the bank to the Tories. In the last quarter of last year the Tories were still taking Russian money and of course they have no intention of giving any of it back.

The slow pace of action on Russian banks allowing them to move it around and hide it is just payment in kind for their filling of the Tory coffers.

There are of course other “enablers” – the law firms and accountancy firms who launder the money – they know the money was stolen from the Russian people, but so what? They get rich as well.

The media is also enablers of the dirty money scandal – they are tripping over themselves to criticise Salmond (the amount he received from RT does not come anywhere near to what the Tories have received) while at the same time completely ignoring what the Tories are doing – there is even a list of Scottish Conservative constituencies and the amounts of Russian money they have received – and we have complete silence from the media.
Winifred McCartney
Paisley

IT seems that one of the main concerns of the media as a result of the aggressive conflict by Russia into Ukraine is the importance of the withholding in various ways of business and finance between Russia and at least the western world.

Questions asked of Ukraine people, either in the UK or their own country, seek information about what effect the fiscal starvation of Russia might be having on places like Moscow. Similar questions have also been asked of the people of Moscow.

In most cases the answer has been in the negative that, at least so far as Vladimir Putin is concerned, it has had very little effect. Putin couldn’t care less, or so it seems.

However, one lady who was interviewed this morning on the Good Morning Scotland news, was asked a similar question, which was becoming a little wee bit tedious, given her response.

Her fundamental response to the apparently banal question of what she thought would happen to the Russian people, whose access to the rouble was suffering at the bank queue was this. “Well never mind the people of Russia, what about the people of Ukraine? What will happen to them in a year’s time or next month?” This, to my knowledge, has never been discussed.

It does seem to me that the BBC, in tune with Johnson et al, is more concerned about stopping Russia via its business with the world than how much more can the west help Ukraine.

I note the emergency session within the United Nations which, subject to a majority vote, will formally condemn Russia, and also that the EU has offered to send Ukraine all the military help possible short of actual boots on the ground.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

A PASSING thought on the issue of Russia and Ukraine.

What is so terrible about some degree of compromise in international affairs? Could Ukraine not promise to refrain from seeking to become a member of Nato for, let us say 20 years? I regard Putin as an unreasonable vicious bully and for that reason I loath him. But he will be long gone in 20 years. Nato, I could add, may also be no more by that time.

So, is that compromise really more terrible than losing a loved member of one’s family? Look around. Switzerland has existed for a long time quite happily on a policy of neutrality. Finland and Sweden are both members of the EU but neither of them are members of Nato. I understand that they have both chosen not to apply for Nato membership. I also suspect that that choice is mainly because they do not want to aggravate Russia, their close neighbour. It seems to me that that is a pragmatic and sensible compromise.

If I go for a walk and come across a field with a bull in it, I may choose to walk around that field. I do not regard that diversion as a terrible infringement of my freedom of action. Nor do I think that I have capitulated to an unreasonable demand. For me, it is just a sensible safety-first choice. The bull gets to do what he wants and I take a little longer to reach my chosen destination.

I am also acutely aware that the Russia-Ukraine war, may be honestly deplored by politicians in many countries, but I am also aware that, for some, it is a welcome diversion from current problems in domestic political matters.
Hugh Noble
Appin

NATO will not agree to Ukraine’s request to operate a no-fly zone to help reduce the damage and deaths from the air and perhaps precipitate a Russian withdrawal. Ukraine is not a Nato member. However, the reason given appears to be the risk of starting an extensive war, involving nuclear weapons. It’s a real risk. Would Putin press the button? Would his military carry out such a command? Who knows.

So, Nato is not prepared to take that risk against the certainty that many citizens of Ukraine will lose their lives and the possibility that a pro-Putin puppet government would be installed.

Any country bordering Russia must be wondering what would happen if Russia attacks them. The same risk factors would come into play irrespective of Nato membership. How far is Nato membership a protection against an aggressor?

It’s easy to raise these questions. But to decide the best course of action against a brutal ideological dictator on a mission, with access to weapons of mass destruction, is beyond difficult.

One can only hope that those in Russia with the means to depose Putin take the matter into their hands soon.
Roddie Macpherson
Avoch

RUSSIAN oligarchs who own houses in Edinburgh and vast estates with shooting and salmon fishing rights in Scotland have absolutely nothing to fear from the Scottish Government, which has acquiesced in the global free market in Scottish property since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999.

Sir John Sinclair, who compiled the 21-volume “Statistical Account of Scotland” at the end of the 18th century, stated that, “in no country in Europe are the rights of the proprietors as well defined and so carefully protected as in Scotland.”

The property of the oligarchs is fully protected under Scots Law, as Police Scotland and the Scottish courts will deal robustly with anyone who thinks they can now take a rabbit, pheasant or salmon from an oligarch’s estate.

Nicola Sturgeon and her government must be seen to be doing something about the oligarchs, but she will plead, as she usually does, that “we do not have the powers to do anything” thus ensuring that the oligarchs continue to enjoy their Scottish property and estates free from any interference.

What a dreadful message to send to the Ukrainians, that in Scotland it is “business as usual” for Russian oligarch money.
Jim Stewart
Musselburgh

THE last time Scottish cannon fodder was used to invade Crimea, 1854, under some pretext or other, should not be forgotten. The returning Highland regiments had to hoof it home from Dover to empty glens and straths, their families and homes scattered in the ongoing Highland Clearances.

Even loyal Highland clans who fought for the Hanoverian jackbooters were given the same treatment under the Proscription Acts of 1745. The native dress, musical instruments, songs, poetry, language, etc, were all brutally banned and enforced.

Even when the Proscription Acts were repealed, on 1st July 1782, they were still subjected to cultural imperialism and racist ridicule. The likes of court jester John Broon loyalists like Sir William Connolly were aptly rewarded, though nobody really likes a snitch, as the Scottish Unionists are slowly finding out or have no sense of self-awareness or shame.

The Repeal was only “granted” to recruit ex-Jacobite survivors into fighting against the French colonists and Native Americans. Many stayed behind and intermarried with their former French allies and Native Americans.

When recruiting sergeants were running out of young men in Rosshire and had to put down rioting women and children, they were told by one old man to put redcoats on the sheep, which still outnumbered the people. The sheep were needed for the new chiefs’ rent and for food and wool for British army uniforms, etc. They told the old man that they were needed to fight for Queen Victoria against the foreign Russian Tsar. He replied that Queen Victoria was foreign to him and that the Tsar had done him no harm. The same could be said for Tsarist KGB Putin and Good Old Queen Bess, as well as her former colonial allies.

We have no quarrel with Russian or Ukrainian people and indeed the ordinary people who still suffer under Western imperialism. If they wanted to defend National sovereignty they could start a little closer to home, right here in Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Donald Anderson
Glasgow

READING Tom Gray’s letter in last week’s Seven Days reminded me of the additional arguments available to ask Scottish Unionist politicians when they exhort the Scottish Government and councils to do more a la Murdo.

If Scotland is genuinely Too Wee; Too Poor etc, as is constantly asserted, shouldn’t the UK Gov pick up and deploy the rules adopted by every Board of Management with multiple entities under their control?

That is, when part of the business is not turning a profit and is a constant drain on the “broad shoulders” of the main business entity, the board take the difficult decisions to sell off the failing asset.

Most often the first port of call is a management “buy-out”, where the incumbent managerial team are given an opportunity to take over the full running including receiving all revenues and being responsible for all costs defined and agreed at the time of separation.

With the current crises that we are all facing, control of entry visas is an immediate action that the UK could devolve, where a special visa allowing entry to Scotland as a refugee, with the right to work in Scotland only. This is similar to the process that the Canadian Dominions operate.

First, with 150,000 refugees fleeing Ukraine, it would be a visible sign of solidarity with the Ukrainian’s to allow a portion of these refugees to enter Scotland.

Second, Scotland has shortage in hospitality/health care and farm workers, and refugees have often stated that they want to work rather than sit in hotels waiting for decisions about their settlement status.

However, as UK Gov seems incapable of understanding their capitalist business models, they appear to operate as one of Aesop’s Fables the Dog In The Manger.
Alistair Ballantyne
Birkhill, Angus