Why are the Greens so down on their own country?

Share As always, I hesitate before commenting on any conflict in the Middle East. However, I would broadly agree with Kevin McKenna's opinion on the Green Party's latest statement on Zionism ("I stand against the Greens' antisemitism", The Herald, October 6). Given Israel is surrounded by many Islamic countries, where is the Greens' criticism of their various restrictive governments? The Green Party was originally based on protecting the environment, improving clean energy and aiming for net zero, I respected that. Since it became mainstream these things have drifted into the background as they fight on foreign affairs, gender issues and particularly support for 'The Palestinians". Maybe they could either concentrate on what their original agenda was or at least treat countries equally. Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Afghanistan, all have serious problems with restriction of religious freedom and subjugation of females. Imagine trying to present their policies in any of these countries. Yet they keep criticising their own country that actually allows freedom of religion and provides education for all genders with no exceptions. We are very fortunate and most of us are grateful for the freedom we all enjoy in the UK. The Greens should remember and respect that before launching into their unbalanced rants about foreign affairs. John Gilligan, Ayr. Read more letters A colossal own goal It's difficult to imagine a bigger own goal than the one the Green Party of England and Wales scored for themselves by passing a motion that declares the Greens as an 'anti-Zionist' party, classes Zionists as racist and calls for the abolition of the State of Israel. The motion was pushed by a pro-Palestine activists group called "Greens for Palestine" who promote the establishment of a single Palestinian state. This sparked outrage not only within the UK but also internationally and especially within the European Green Party, the umbrella organisation of Green parties across Europe. On its homepage the European Greens distance themselves from the motion and state that already before it was passed they had discussions with the UK Greens expressing their concerns. The notion was echoed by the co-leader of the German Greens who, in a televised press conference last Monday, also condemned the resolution by stating: 'The resolution that was passed there yesterday is in my view unbearable and unacceptable. It contradicts everything Bündnis90/Die Grünen [Alliance90/The Greens] in Germany stand for and it contradicts what the European Green Party stands for.' He added: 'We have a broadly shared view within the European Green Party that the right of Israel to exist stands and must not be touched.' By making the abolition of the State of Israel official party policy, the Greens of England and Wales couldn't be more out of step with their European counterparts. Finally, to illustrate why it is imperative that the Jewish people have their own homeland, let's assume a country called Israel had existed before 1933, a country that accepted Jewish people from all over the world as a matter of course. A country where European Jews could have escaped the Nazis safely and without question. It seems fair to assume that the persecution of Jewish people by the Nazis might have had a very different outcome, had such a country existed at the time. All eyes are now on the Scottish Greens and whether or not they will follow in the steps of the European and German Greens. Although, given Ross Greer's pronouncement today ("Scottish Greens co-leader Ross Greer says Zionism is racist", heraldscotland, October 6), I won't hold my breath. Regina Erich, Stonehaven. We should be allowed to criticise In 2025 Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, went on record as calling members of the Israeli cabinet 'a group of thugs' and 'a criminal gang'. He also wrote an opinion piece for the Haaretz newspaper which had the headline 'Enough is enough. Israel is committing War Crimes.' While I in no way condone the motion on Zionism passed by the recent Green Party conference, which smacks to me of left-wing entryism that the party hierarchy will have to confront sooner rather than later, it must surely be possible for people who do not have the get out of jail free card of being former Israeli Prime Ministers to find some means of criticising the actions of the current Israeli Government without attracting sneering condemnation from Kevin McKenna and almost universal accusations of anti-Semitism. Robin Irvine, Helensburgh. • The October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas that killed 1,200 mainly Jewish people was an atrocity. We can all agree on that. And yes, Jewish people should not be targeted because of their faith. Agreed. But we should also be talking here on the third anniversary of the massacre about the response from the Israeli government which many countries and the UN now recognise as genocide with more than 75,000 Palestinians killed. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, obviously would like to get rid of the Palestinians. Violent mobs of settlers are helping with this ethnic cleansing project, with killings and burnings of Palestinian family homes, while more illegal settlements are being built in the Occupied Territories. What should not be forgotten is that much of the land Palestinians call home has under international law been illegally occupied by Israel for more than 50 years. Kevin McKenna makes no mention of this in his piece. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. John Swinney insists that Scottish pensions are at risk (Image: PA Wire) Where is the financial case? Andy Burnham's words indicating that one of the constituent parts of the triple lock, the link to annual pay increase, will be removed from 2030 were hardly out his mouth when John Swinney immediately suggested that Scottish pensions were at risk (due to evil Westminster) and, that by 2050, pensioners would be some £2,000 per year worse off. I have always been wary of the pay rise measurement having lived and worked through a number of pay freeze policies when clever Personnel (now HR) managers restructured and regraded jobs to circumvent government policy and the effect of supply and demand on various job types as well as regional variations in the cost of living causing disparity in wages and salaries. What is good is that the greater of inflation or 2.5% will be retained. However, John Swinney has, as we have now come to expect, distorted the facts and amazingly had scaremongering super-fast financial predictions from his government economists. Is this the same government that has had two decades to publish the financial case for independence in general and, in particular, has never said what the state pension will be in an independent Scotland and what currency my company pension will be paid in or if it will be affected by an exchange rate mechanism? Given that his economists and financial advisers were so quick to calculate a prediction for some 25 years away (when I will either not be here or happily ga-ga in a care home) surely we can assume that these same clever money men and women have done their sums for independence but as the financial case has never been tabled, you can bet it doesn't make good reading. If not, it would have been published years ago. What amazes me is that the cult following never question this and as letters in The Herald show, there are many indy financial experts out there who have all sorts of arguments to support independence that are never taken on by 'Honest John' and his team. I wonder why? Duncan Sooman, Milngavie. The case against Reform Alan Fitzpatrick (Letters, October 6) states that Catriona Clark's claim that people fear a Reform government is a personal opinion without factual basis. There are two recent polls by Survation that he would do well to read. The first states that there is widespread support for tactical voting to keep out Reform. The second states that even 50% of 2024 Reform voters consider that Nigel Farage's £5 million gift from a crypto millionaire increases the risk of buying inappropriate political influence. Sam Craig, Glasgow.Share Get involved with the news