It is quite predicable that Stan Grodynski and Douglas Turner (Letters, 26 December) complain about the attacks on the SNP regarding the oil price.
Quite clearly on their planet the then First Minister did not make bold statements about how oil would retain its value rather than crashing as it has.
The reason it is legitimate to attack the SNP is that this is a democracy. The then leader of the SNP made statements that have proved false and are now being challenged.
What is sad is that these gentlemen would seek to deny us the right to challenge. As I have written in these columns before, my family fled from regimes that restricted the right to challenge the government – heaven forbid that Messrs Grodynski and Turner should seek to inflict such policies on Scotland.
Their right to free speech is paramount but the right to sedition is not.
(Dr) Roger Cartwright
If the SNP had said in its Scotland’s Future wish list that economic viability calculations included oil at around $110 a barrel, and had then showed how that viability would be maintained at lesser prices, there would have been evidence of fiscal responsibility, but that was not the case.
So now at least two aspects of SNP policy are revealed as being based on chance.
We get economic viability if the oil price keeps up, and we get electricity if the wind blows.
Makes you wonder if pensions and benefits are perhaps dependent on the outcome of the 3.30 at Kempton Park.