Letter: Circle of strife

The circular chamber for Holyrood (Letters, 4 February) was always a daft idea. Why would Scottish politicians be any different from politicians in Westminster, say?

The idea that Scots (of all people!) would prefer co-operation before confrontation was silly and anyone who fell for this hype would fall for anything.

The problem with Holyrood is that few MSPs are actually capable of reasoned debate.

The first rule of debate is rebuttal of the other's argument. Yet when Alex Salmond is asked probing questions at First Minister's Questions he routinely ignores the question, or worse, patronises the questioner with inappropriate but deliberate familiarity. In this way he avoids the question and diminishes the questioner.

MSPs cheer and jeer according to party loyalties but noise doesn't do much for anyone's anxiety. You'd think a Scottish Parliament would want to prove that it was better than the one at Westminster. But I doubt it.

If a government won't answer questions and account for its actions in a proper manner, we'd be insane to trust it with even greater powers, far less independence.

Robert Veitch

Paisley Drive

Edinburgh

How very true are RA Hawke's remarks regarding being switched off by viewing the Scottish Parliament (Letters, 4 February).

I would say his thoughts represent the vast majority of those Scots free of party links who have witnessed any session of First Minister's Questions since 2007.

Alex Salmond's performances on these occasions have shown him to be a loud-mouthed, belligerent, sarcastic bully, a kick-them-when-they're-down leader, lacking any kind of statesmanship or even humour or basic good manners.

I shudder at any non-Scot viewing these sessions. If, as some fear, the turnout at the election in May dips below the 50 per cent mark, much of this turn-off can be laid at the feet of the First Minister.

My only comfort is in the fact that I voted No-No at the referendum that brought all this about.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh