Stan Grodynski (Letters April 25), had the honesty to admit that the Scottish parliament’s committee system needs to be “progressed”. He then urged me to “concede” that action is required on the first-past-the-post voting system and the House of Lords.
I have openly stated my views on these issues previously in this column. I support Ed Miliband’s proposal to replace the House of Lords with an elected senate. I also support looking at the possibility of proportional representation in UK elections – provided the proposed system worked more democratically than the current Scottish version.
Yesterday, (Letters, 27 April) Mr Grodynski complains that such a spirit of openness does not prevail amongst Labour politicians. He accuses them of “deliberate deception” on economic questions basing his arguments on the claim that the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies have got things wrong or on the predictions of major investment banks.
In the same issue your report uncovers the “secret dossier” revealing the real intentions of any potential SNP MP at Westminster. The plan is to “hit the ground running” to “twist the arm” of the party in government in order to “get that second referendum” within “five years”.
None of this, of course, comes as a surprise. But does it not seem a far cry from Ms Sturgeon’s claim that an SNP presence at Westminster would be “exercising influence responsibly and constructively in the interests of the people across the whole of the UK”?
Everybody who is not wearing a blindfold can see that this is deliberate deception. But why persist in keeping up the empty mirage? Does she not have the integrity or the gumption just to be open about SNP plans for the assault on Westminster?
Braid Hills Avenue