Edinburgh Council refuses to ban arms testing in city parks
An Edinburgh councillor has spoken out after a city committee voted not to ban arms firms from testing military equipment in city parks.
In December 2024, arms manufacturer Leonardo was given permission to test communications equipment in the Braid Hills.
Green councillor Ben Parker said he was 'disappointed' that councillors chose to not back his motion, which would have seen the practice banned.
He continued: 'Today, Councillors had a chance to stand up for peace and instead chose inaction.
'Despite community objections and a clear moral imperative, the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties have voted to continue to allow arms manufacturers to test their equipment in our beautiful, publicly owned, green spaces.
'The Council has previously taken a strong stance on opposing advertising and sponsorship from arms manufacturers, and it is completely hypocritical to then allow these same companies to use our beautiful public space to test their equipment.
'At a time when we are witnessing the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people, we should not be supporting companies who profit from arms sales to the Israeli Government in any way.'
Cllr Parker had originally put the motion forward for discussion at May's full council meeting, but an amendment by the Liberal Democrat group sent it to the Culture and Communities Committee for discussion.
In a deputation to the committee, he urged councillors to take a stand on the issue, drawing comparisons to the city's Labour council taking a stand against apartheid during the 1986 Commonwealth Games held in the city.
That year's games were protested widely, and boycotted by 26 nations, due to the UK Government's relationship with the then white-minority government in South Africa.
Liberal Democrat councillor Fiona Bennett said: 'I have been to Iraq twice, once in 2018 with an NGO I'm very closely involved with and again in 2019 with the UN supporting victims of ISIS.
'I saw first-hand devastation throughout northern Iraq and in particular in Mosul – images that will never leave me, and images that will haunt me, for the rest of my life.
'The events unfolding around the world right now are harrowing. And I know people on the ground in Gaza right now, I can't bear what they're telling me.
'This is incredibly difficult, we're being forced to confront balancing our ethical values and responsibilities with the very real fragility of our national security.
'This is the most fragile and uncertain political, global landscape in my lifetime, and I really worry about the future our daughters have in front of them.
'So when we talk about banning testing, are we saying there should be no such testing anywhere in the UK?
'And if so, are we inadvertently undermining our own ability to defend ourselves at a time when global threats are growing and becoming even more complex?'
Councillors narrowly supported an amended version of the motion put forward by the Liberal Democrat group, which did not pursue a ban.
Instead, it referenced the city's draft parks management plan, which empowers council officers to ban any activity which will or could 'endanger' any person or property.
By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter
Like this:
Like
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: After by-election win Labour needs to sell message of positive change
Labour's surprise win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election had readers talking Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Reform UK's 26 per cent vote share at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is a warning that the populist party with a toxic ideology can make inroads in next year's Holyrood election. Political expert Sir John Curtice estimates Nigel Farage's party could come third, with 18 seats, based on recent polling (your report, 2 June). He said Reform's success is 'very bad news' for the Tories who polled just 6 per cent at the by-election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfounded remarks by Farage about Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar allegedly favouring the Pakistani community were condemned as racist by all major parties in Scotland apart from the Tories, who remain toothless against a party that has overtaken them in the polls and threatens to render them obsolete. The recent resignation of Bellshill-born Reform party chairman Zia Yusuf, after its newest MP suggested the banning of the burka, is a blow to Farage. This follows Reform's controversial views on banning asylum seekers from Reform-held councils, an unworkable net zero migration policy and the recent comments against Mr Sarwar. Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) Reform has no place in Scottish democracy as it is difficult to justify any support for a party with outdated views on multiculturalism and climate change. Labour must show that Hamilton was not a blip to defeat two decades of failed SNP policies and the toxic politics of Reform. Voters are more likely to engage if there is tangible hope of positive change. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Counting chickens? While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat Labour needs to win if Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh Real winner After all the hype by First Minister John Swinney talking up Reform and ignoring Labour it was obviously a tactic by the SNP to try and salvage a win in Hamilton. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Similarly, despite a dreadful campaign by Labour, voting SNP was simply not an option for many on the left. In comes the real winner, Reform UK, with a spectacular vote from a near nil base. Mr Swinney has unleashed a force that will do real damage in the 2026 Holyrood election. The SNP has proved itself too self-congratulatory too many times. Eighteen years of misrule cannot be rewarded by another term in office. All bets are off as to the make-up of Holyrood in 2026. The SNP is tired, Labour has yet to prove itself effective, Reform UK has the bit between its teeth and the Tories might yet recover. A year is a long time in politics. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Swinney must go The loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable 54 per cent in a Norstat poll – John Swinney chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75 per cent of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. When Keir Starmer declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. The truth is stark: the SNP has no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee Let teachers teach As a retired primary teacher who worked for 40 years in primary education, I think there is a simple solution to the 'excessive workload'. Stop expecting detailed forward plans, lesson plans and reviews of the same and let teachers teach instead of being overburdened with paperwork for the sake of accountability. The Curriculum for Excellence has a lot to answer for. It was what changed things so drastically and made teaching so much more stressful. When I began teaching in the 1970s, teachers completed a Record of Work every two weeks. This showed the work that had been completed in all the subjects taught in the primary curriculum in the previous two weeks. From there the progress that was made was clear and any teacher taking over the class (say as sickness cover) knew what was being taught. This was not as detailed as the Forward Plan which replaced it, but it was a clear record, in one slim book, of what had been achieved over the school year. Pupils' work was marked daily and preparations for next day made daily. The pupils left literate and numerate and, for the most part, behaved responsibly. Forty years later we were required to make a 'Forward Plan' for each subject for the term ahead and then assessed as to how we felt it had been achieved before writing the next Forward Plan! A daily diary of the plan for each day was also required. This was to be written up for the week so any teacher could take over. This was detailed to show subject, aims and objectives. On top of this there was, of course, the marking and noting of any problems and collecting materials for the next day's work. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the last year or so of my career we had a school inspection. The HMI 'dropped in' to observe one of my lessons and said at the end, 'That was an excellent lesson, but I'm afraid I cannot grade you on it as you didn't have a detailed lesson plan'. My reply was that I had never written a full lesson plan for any lesson since graduating from Callendar Park teacher training college. If teachers are allowed to teach without all the emphasis on accountability their workload would be greatly reduced and they could enjoy working with their pupils and seeing them love to learn, as I did at the start of my career. Barbara Wilson, Edinburgh Cringe no more I must disagree with Alexander McKay, and by extension, Billy Connolly, on the charge that the Scottish Parliament is 'pretendy' (Letters, 6 June). Far from it. Rather, it brings democracy and answerability to our doorstep. If the Scottish Parliament were pretendy, the Westminster Parliament is undoubtedly toxic. Politicians of the calibre of Mhairi Black and Stephen Flynn, disillusioned with Westminster, are seriously thinking of transferring their allegiance. Scotland struggled long and hard to achieve a Scottish Parliament in 1999, with the likes of Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, David Steel and Alex Salmond playing leading roles. Hopefully, Holyrood is here to stay, and grow in stature and personnel, with more and Parliamentarians choosing to be MSPs rather than MPs. Let's hear no more of the infamous 'Scottish cringe'. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh On the buses Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Andrew Clark, who expressed absolute dismay over bus lanes (Letters, 5 June), got the wrong end of the stick. Bus priority lanes are not, in the first instance, about reducing pollution, but about minimising congestion for those who are prepared to travel together. And to encourage people to do so, buses need to be able to progress reliably, especially on the main arteries. Cars have a vastly disproportionate footprint compared to buses. Bus lanes go some way towards reallocating the communal road space more fairly. Harald Tobermann, Chair, Edinburgh Bus Users Group Write to The Scotsman
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
All change after Hamilton – but not perhaps in the way you expect
To elect is, literally, to choose. And people in this by-election have chosen, narrowly, to put their faith in Labour's Davy Russell, who fought a doorstep campaign, remote from media concerns. This was the change contest. Understandably pleased, the Prime Minister hailed a 'fantastic victory' for Labour – before adding that 'people in Scotland had once again voted for change.' Read more Brian Taylor I think that is true but I suspect it may not be quite the change advanced by Sir Keir Starmer. I understand his perspective. He is seeking to fit Hamilton into the wider Starmer narrative. You will recall that, at the July UK General Election, Sir Keir repeatedly offered 'change'. His aim was to gain from the discontent – no, the loathing – which had attached itself to the Conservatives. To posit Labour as the remedy, without being all that specific about details. So, with these comments on Hamilton, he is seeking to suggest that Davy Russell's victory is, in some way, continuity: an endorsement of the approach pursued by his government. To repeat, I understand his motivation in so doing. But I am certain that this is awry. You have only to listen to senior figures from Scottish Labour to grasp that Hamilton disquiet was aimed at incumbency. The SNP at Holyrood, yes. But also Labour at Westminster. Broadcasting to an astonished nation on the wireless, I was most struck by Labour MSP Paul Sweeney who disclosed candidly that he had experienced 'pretty grim conversations' with voters. Despite those doorstep difficulties, Labour contrived to oust the defending SNP. Incidentally, only the third time the incumbents have lost in the twelve Holyrood by-elections which have taken place since devolution. But Labour's Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, knows this fell far short of an enthusiastic vote of confidence. He knows people want much more from Team Starmer. He knows they are upset over the economy and benefit curbs. Still, that Labour victory does represent change. The ousting of the SNP. Which itself demands a further change. John Swinney acknowledged as much at his news conference. His party, he said, had made some progress – but not enough. The aim now must be to address the priorities of the people, specifically the cost of living and NHS waiting times. He was accused by Labour's Anas Sarwar of seeking to drive voters towards Reform UK. Again an understandable point, but not entirely valid. Certainly, Mr Swinney suggested that the by-election was a two-horse race between the SNP and Nigel Farage's party. In so doing, he was seeking to polarise the contest, to pitch his party as the ones to stop the seemingly resurgent Reform, aware that Labour had comfortably outpolled the SNP at the UK election last year. Sir Keir Starmer is keen to tie the by-election into a wider story about Labour (Image: free) It was, in short, a strategy rather than a forecast. Nevertheless, the SNP came up short – and a degree of humility can now be expected from the First Minister. So he too must change the SNP formula. To a substantial degree, he already has, concentrating upon popular priorities such as the NHS, while sidelining issues such as gender. Some within the SNP may question Mr Swinney's own judgement. I suspect, however, that the majority will back his determination to focus firmly upon the economy and public service delivery. If there was even a fragment of complacency in the SNP leadership, it has been utterly expunged by Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. Might this result also sideline the issue of independence, as the campaign group Scotland in Union suggest? Not in those terms. John Swinney will continue to pitch independence as a solution to persistent problems. But I expect he will primarily concentrate upon the problems themselves. Listening, in short, to voters. That emphasis may further disadvantage the Tories who tend to do well at Holyrood when they can depict themselves as the stalwart defenders of a threatened union. However, there are other changes to consider. Labour's vote is well down on the UK General Election in this area and on their by-election showing in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Folk are scunnered with the SNP. But they are also unhappy with the PM and the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. If she doubts that, perhaps she could have a word with her Commons aide, Imogen Walker. The MP for Hamilton and Clyde Valley. So Anas Sarwar will pursue a twin strategy. Gently, diplomatically urging his Westminster colleagues to pursue policies which palpably help voters. While at the same time offering to change the government at Holyrood. Pitching himself as the sole contender to oust Mr Swinney. Seeking to marginalise rivals. Another change is the emergence of Reform. They came a creditable third, consigning the Tories to a whimpering fourth. Indeed, they got a higher percentage in this area than the Tories have historically managed. A sign perhaps that Reform can appeal to a wider range of voters, also eating into Labour and SNP support. Read more But will that endure? Or will Reform fall back again, perhaps beset by the internal divisions which emerged sharply on polling day itself when their chairman, Scots-born Zia Yousuf, resigned? On quitting, he said that he no longer wished to devote his time to installing Nigel Farage in Downing Street. He was also less than delighted with the new Reform MP Sarah Pochin who said in the Commons that the burka should be banned. However, the Tories are not exactly exempt from internal division, at Westminster and Holyrood. They must simply strive to recover from this by-election nadir – and hope that Reform will subside. Does this by-election change expectations of the Holyrood outcome next year? In itself, no. It tells us that voters are scunnered. But then you already knew that. It tells us that folk want and expect change. They want an easing of this age of anxiety. But then you knew that too. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre - and Dundee United FC
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
