I'm sorry, but this just shows your lack of math skills.

Apparently, you can't read either. The report cited (linked below) says just the opposite of what you're trying to say here.

throwaway_27_11 points20 hours ago https://publichealthscotland.scot/media/11763/22-02-16-covid19winter_publication_report.pdf#page=29

Interestingly, the report itself warns against just such abuse of its statistics:

There is a large risk of misinterpretation of the data presented in this section due to the complexities of vaccination data. (p.32)

The report actually says:

Evidence suggests the COVID-19 vaccines are over 75% effective at preventing a severe outcome of COVID-19. COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths are strongly driven by older age, with most deaths occurring in those over 70 years old and having multiple other illnesses.

It also cautions:

Data and rates presented in this section are not a measure of vaccine effectiveness...’. Unlike case rates, vaccine effectiveness analysis accounts for potential biases in the data and risk factors such as age, sex, prior infection, co-morbidities, socio economic status and time since vaccination.

Setting aside your inability to actually read the reports you cite, let's do some math 101.

Let's say you have 100 baby sheep (or 'lambs' we might say). 95 of them are regular white, 5 are black. A bunch of them get sick, but you notice that out of 7 deaths, 6 are white, 1 black. You say, gosh, it looks like white sheep were far more susceptible to the disease because 85.7% of the dead lambs were white. Is that a correct assumption? 100 points if you get the right answer. This is easy math, so if you don't get it right, it's back to middle school math for you.

NOTE: the percentages in this problem are the same as the vaccination rate vs. not vaccinated in Scotland (per the report cited).