Scotland Matters Letters

There will be no “independence” from the UK for Scotland. Economically, administratively, defensively and politically it could only be an absolute disaster. And judging by the withdrawal of most of the key figures from the current SNP administration, they must consider that to be the case too. The replacements for initially Salmond, and presently Sturgeon and Swinney, et al are hardly inspiring, and most likely doomed to failure before they even start. Most of them have held senior positions in earlier administrations and have failed to shine. And for the SNP to have to rely on the Green Party to maintain a majority in Parliament is farcical – they have not been elected by the voters. The whole concept of a Scottish “executive”, as envisaged by its Labour/Liberal founding fathers, should have led to improvements in regional government. But the growth and influence of the SNP, with its narrow concept of politics, has resulted in unacceptably inefficient standards in Scotland’s administration. The fiasco at Holyrood simply cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. If the so-called Scottish Government is unable to make major improvements within all aspects of the administration then the experiment of an executive in Scotland should be abandoned, and all governmental powers returned to Westminster. Robert I G Scott, Ceres.

Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce adviser and former SNP adviser and parliamentary candidate Fergus Mutch and the SNP’s Westminster leader Stephen Flynn have been vocal about UK Government policy in the North Sea. I don’t know how Mr Mutch voted in the leadership election, but in backing Humza Yousaf Mr Flynn played his part in welding the Green tail to the SNP dog and with it their fatwa on the UK oil industry. Had they backed Kate Forbes they and we might have had a leader who has a common-sense approach to oil and gas and the “just transition” and could have formed a Green-free minority government that may have enjoyed the support of the Conservatives and Labour on some policies, including oil and gas, and with it a more fruitful and persuasive relationship with the UK Government and Scottish voters. But hey, independence transitions, sorry, transcends, everything. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

In Scotland, we live in a strange polity where age is a movable feast. The SNP demanded that voting in the 2014 referendum be extended to 16-18-year-olds, for the first time. Soon after that, it tried to introduce its Named Person scheme, which was based on the principle that 16-18-year-olds, like younger children, required for their guidance and safety the assigning to them of a named adult who would supervise their welfare – or, as we now call it, ‘wellbeing’. So 16-17-year-olds were mature enough to take a major political decision affecting other people, but not to conduct their own lives without adult supervision. The logic of these two conflicting decisions was never explained. Now, more recently, we have had a law passed – but not given royal assent – that is based on the premise that 16-18-year-olds are sufficiently mature to make the momentous and life-changing decision to change their legal gender (they cannot, of course, change their sex: that is not possible). That has been followed by the imposing in a Scottish court of a non-custodial sentence on a youth who repeatedly raped a 13-year-old girl when he was 17, because under 25s are deemed not to be sufficiently mature to be criminally responsible in the way that over 25s arc. Yes, different youngsters mature at different stages in life. But that is not what these measures are based on. They, apparently randomly, choose 16 as the gateway in some cases but 18 in others. It is high time that we had an authoritative and reasoned decision on the age of maturity and responsibility that is valid for all aspects of life and conduct. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

Interesting comments from Douglas Ross on tactical voting. The idea sounds revolutionary, but I think you will find that there has been a fair bit of tactical voting going on for years, from Union-ist voters. No big party has promoted it so far, only unionist pressure groups. So if it received big backing – who knows what might happen! William Ballantine, Bo’ness, West Lothian.

It is a fact that one in three Scottish nationalists actually voted for Brexit. The reality was that it was Scottish Conservative votes that supported Remain in Scotland. This was ignored by the SNP and then simply removed from the political narrative. There is no uniform SNP mindset in Scotland. There is no standard Scottish voter. The reality is that the population of Scotland is much like the population of England – a complex mixed assortment. Scotland is not a one-party political state. How has the SNP maintained the illusion of popular support whilst governing Scotland so very poorly? The answer is misplaced trust and blind loyalty and a complete lack of critical examination of actual performance. The authoritarian rule of Sturgeon and Murrell of the SNP has shown what an abuse of devolved power can do to a small authoritarian political Party. The grievance mechanism used by the SNP to change opinion is so destructive that it has created a political “stalemate” between the Yes and No factions with a totally divided nation. The realisation of this impasse and the haemorrhaging SNP membership is the obvious root cause for Sturgeon’s resignation. For all her boasting of (minority) votes won by the SNP this has been perfectly counterbalanced by the combined unionist votes. The sad reality is Nicola Sturgeon has left the country worse off than she found it – with no real plan for the future. The “progressive” claims of Humza Yousaf are pure baloney, much like the marriage of convenience with the wee Greens. David Philip, Knockhall Way, Newburgh.

Share this entry