В Гلاسгоу мигранты учат местный диалект, чтобы преодолеть ксенофобию и слухи о приоритете в жилье

Kevin McKenna provided an uplifting and enlightening article about refugees and asylum seekers settling in Glasgow, and learning ‘Received Weegie’ (“How refugees in Glasgow are learning Weegie as they build new lives”, The Herald, August 24). Next day I watched Sky News report how migrants are fuelling community tension and vigilantism in Glasgow because it has been suggested that they get priority over housing. Angry locals in Cranhill were shouting “get them out” and accusing incomers of crimes, including rape. But where do these protesters get their information? Obviously not from the people who might actually know, including the police and housing officials. No, it is social media, where any lies can be retold as truths. Your correspondent’s piece was a breath of fresh air about Refugee Sanctuary Scotland and its newly-appointed chief executive Ronald ‘Ronnie’ Tagwireyi, who arrived in the UK from Zimbabwe in 1991, after criticising Robert Mugabe’s regime. He was refused asylum and ended up in prison in London. After two decades he managed to make Scotland his home, and what a bonus for us. Mr McKenna says he is eloquent and charismatic and determined to make Glasgow a welcoming place for people caught up in wars, violence and prejudices elsewhere in the world. The Sanctuary in Bath Street provides hope for hundreds of refugees who want to contribute to this city, and that is why many are taking lessons in Weegie. There has been a rise in hostility towards asylum seekers in Scotland in recent times. But their resilience will prevail. They’ve been through hell in their native countries and survived, and with our support should survive and thrive here. Andy Stenton, Glasgow. More letters... Bias has now become part of the ethos of the BBC's Question Time Bill Turnbull is an ever-present at our Radio Clyde reunions Face up to problem of coercion in the Catholic Church GERS: The real nonsense Each August, the GERS figures (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) are published (“GERS: What the figures really show about Scotland”, The Herald, August 12). And each year, without fail, unionist commentators seize on the headline deficit as proof that Scotland cannot afford independence. They present the figures as a definitive verdict on Scotland's fiscal viability – a simple number that settles the matter once and for all. But this is a fundamental misuse of the data. GERS does not, and cannot, describe the finances of an independent Scotland. It describes them as part of the United Kingdom – a snapshot of the current constitutional arrangements, not a forecast of what Scotland could achieve with full fiscal powers. The distinction is not a technicality. It is the entire point. GERS assumes Scotland's revenue streams, taxation, and spending priorities remain exactly as they are under Westminster control. It records UK-wide expenditure allocated to Scotland by population share - including defence, debt interest, and other spending that may not be physically spent here – inflating its notional deficit. It says nothing about Scotland's assets: our energy, our land, our human capital. Norway built a £1.3 trillion sovereign wealth fund by owning its oil. GERS cannot tell you what Scotland could do with the same opportunity. As the Fraser of Allander Institute has warned: "To use this figure to say anything about an independent Scotland, in the absence of much-needed specific details about any future constitutional arrangement, is to misuse it". So why does the SNP Government continue to publish figures that seem designed to undermine its own cause? The answer is that GERS is a National Statistics product, independently assessed by the UK Statistics Authority. The Scottish Government is bound by statistical codes of practice that require transparency and methodological rigour. It cannot simply abandon or replace it with a more favourable alternative. Changes to methodology must be consulted on and agreed with users – academics, industry experts, and other stakeholders. The real question is not why the Scottish Government publishes GERS. It is why Unionists continue to misuse it – despite repeated warnings from independent economists that such misuse is exactly that: a misuse. Unionists cannot still be presenting statistical artefacts in place of reasoned arguments, and then hoping we won't notice the difference. Is that, surely, not the real nonsense? Bruce Crichton, Hamilton. FFA: ultimate test for deficit deniers Stan Grodynski (Letters, August 25) misquotes me (Letters, August 24) and ducks the central point. I never claimed that full fiscal autonomy (FFA) within the UK would preserve Scotland’s ability to spend far more per head than south of the border. FFA means Scotland keeps every tax pound raised here but loses the Barnett formula. It forces us to live within our own means while still keeping the Union’s advantages: the UK internal market (nearly four times our EU trade), the pound, no hard border, shared defence and lower borrowing costs. All of those would disappear on independence. FFA is the ultimate test for deficit deniers. It hands them exactly what they claim to want – full control of Scotland’s finances. If they cannot even accept that, the economic case for independence is blown out of the water. Arguing for independence at any cost is one thing. Denying the deficit and selling independence on a false premise is another. Regardless, the bond markets will not fund independence on nationalist reinterpretations of GERS. They will use the official figures the Sustainable Growth Commission accepted before the SNP binned them and impose the same terms in the report. So, would the markets accept GERS, or Stan Grodynski’s alternative accounting? We know the answer. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. Foolish footballing icon Gary Lineker states that he is an idiot. (“If I’d wanted a quiet life, I could have shut up. But I’m an idiot”, The Herald, August 26). In relation to Mr Lineker’s very pro-Palestine / anti-Israel stance, the answer is to agree with him, “yes”. In 2005, the Israelis unilaterally withdrew their forces and settlements from Gaza. Whilst this withdrawal still left Israel in control of border and air space, it gave the Palestinian community a chance to re-build a peaceful territory and demonstrate to the world a desire for co-existence with Israel. In essence, this could have been the start of the ‘two state solution’. Instead, we got Hamas, tunnels, daily rockets fired over the border and a burning desire to destroy Israel from the river to the sea. Mr Lineker claims he knows the history of this conflict. Why can he not see that his vision is terribly one-sided? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Cashing out In relation to the profligacy within the NHS, Jack Robertson poses the question: "Why do executives think they can splash public money without any scrutiny?" (Letters, August 25). The answer is straightforward - they follow the example of their masters at Holyrood, in the knowledge that they won't have to account to anyone for their actions. Alan McGibbon, Paisley. Brought to book With all the time that Peter Murrell now has on his hands to reflect (Letters, August 17), perhaps he could write his own book, in response to the one written by Nicola Sturgeon. It would give him a chance to clear up many a claim or assertion, and it would certainly be an interesting talking point. Peter Wright, West Kilbride.