Then we were told that no one would be penalised for not complying. We were told by the SNP before and during the National census, which the SNP decided they could run better than Westminster, that it was illegal to not complete the census form and could lead to a heavy fine. Return rate in England and Wales was 97 per cent, in Scotland approximately 88 per cent. Because of the low rate of return extra millions of pounds of public money had to be spent in Scotland. How many people have been fined?

Now, because of the intransigent attitude of a Green MSP and her refusal to listen to business concerns over the ill-planned Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), we have many large, and small, businesses fearing for their future.

Governing by coercion is the SNP modus operandi and is bad for Scotland.

Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity Lorna Slater insists the Deposit Return Scheme is a winner for Scotland (Picture: Andy Buchanan/AFP)

Ian Balloch, Grangemouth, Falkirk

Rishi Sunshine

Can it get much worse for the SNP/Greens partnership? Nicola Sturgeon resigns, no obvious replacement has emerged, the rivets on the box marked “scandal” are rattling loose, formerly internal pub brawls are spilling out onto the street, we're all having either a laugh or a commercial meltdown over what to do with the “empties” and now, after months of hard, detailed, legwork and negotiation, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak goes and delivers the “Windsor Framework”.

In one fell swoop he has disarmed the main nationalist weaponry of recent years, namely Brexit. Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, whose deluded comeback plans are no more, laid the groundwork for more unity in Sunak’s own party and established trusted, pragmatic relations with the EU which can lead to further softening of Brexit, to the benefit of the whole UK.

This comes on top of Sunak burnishing his credentials as a practical supporter of the Union by ensuring the Northern Irish people's interests are looked after post-Brexit and we will likely see the resumption of business at Stormont.

The Section 30 and Gender Recognition Reform missile strikes on Scottish nationalism could soon be followed by the UK Government binning the bottle bank fiasco.

The media were unimpressed by Rishi Sunak’s first 100 days but the last 27 have been historic.

And to cap it all, the support provided by Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer has not only helped Sunak's premiership, it hias raised his and Labour's standing with voters and we can now anticipate the only true way to end Scotland's indy nightmare: a rout of the SNP at the forthcoming elections by upbeat UK parties.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven

Tough nut

During the Tories’ most recent leadership pantomime Rishi Sunak was at pains to stress just how tough he was. It now seems that although his party, particularly the UKIP wing, is walking all over him, his advisers have come up with a section of UK government he can flex his alleged political muscle at and not have to worry about any consequences. Let’s face it, few Scots vote Tory anyway and even fewer will come the next election.The real story here is that the DRS is hugely important environmentally and gender recognition has to be addressed, but this Westminster government has been not only dilatory but also extremely incompetent in their efforts to roll out their own scheme or to make any meaningful response to the gender issue.Given the Liz Truss-inspired financial bedlam and the catastrophic Brexit Sunak’s party imposed upon us, it’s little wonder he is looking around desperately for some scapegoat to shift the focus from his administration’s disastrous last few years. How long before the penny will finally drop and he’ll realise it’s all too little too late?This corrupt and hapless Tory government has run out of steam and ideas and is holding back the progress of rest of the country. And that’s irrespective of how “tough” he thinks he is.

D Mitchell, Edinburgh

SNP bun-fight

What an amazing bun-fight the SNP are having. Unionist parties can pull up the deckchairs and study how each shows how unsuited they are to hold office. It is not the unionists who are saying so, however. They are doing it for us – and more power to their elbows, I say.

Kate Forbes has suffered the indignity of veiled comments by both Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney implying that she is not the right sort of person to become leader because she actually holds some moral attitudes that they don't. In fact, Sturgeon and Swinney subscribe to a morality which is directly contrary to what many of us believe in. Nonetheless, Ms Forbes is still an advocate for the policy that Scots have clearly voted against: independence. However, she is still young and has plenty of time to grow out of it, as many do. I see her as the graduate trainee.

Humza Yousaf, on the other hand, is squirming on the lance-point of Andrew Neil, who has skewered him thoroughly, and his protestations about why he missed the same sex marriage vote do not ring true. His track record also is dismal.

However, for sheer, unadulterated insanity, Ash Regan takes the biscuit. Any country that wants to exist has to seek international recognition and neither EFTA nor the EU would accept her suggestion that Scotland could just walk away from the UK. What about the currency Scotland would use? What about a share of UK debt? What about picking up the tab for pensions and social security payments? How would those be paid for? How would she stop Vladimir Putin's merry men appearing on our streets later that day?

Who could possibly take this woman seriously?

Andrew H N Gray, Edinburgh

Magic formula

In spite of its fervour for Scottish independence the SNP has neither the political or economic strength to go it alone. If they think otherwise then I would suggest that they are totally misleading the guid folks of Scotland.

We are completely aware of the subsidisation of the Scottish Government's activities per the Barnett Formula provisions. Have Nicola Sturgeon, or her successors, taken that into account when they are pontificating about Scotland becoming an independent country?

Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife

No doubt

John Fraser claimed that Scotland voted to join England “in creating the United Kingdom” (Letters, 28 February). In fact the parliaments of both Scotland and England voted separately to join together to create the Kingdom of Great Britain (GB). The United Kingdom was not created until 1800 when the former Kingdom of Ireland was joined to GB. Since then the UK lost most of Ireland but retained the title because a small part of the Irish kingdom remained (Northern Ireland). That's why the title of this country is “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. The kingdoms referred to in that title are those of GB and Ireland, not those of Scotland and England.Those who claim that the 1707 vote by the then Scottish parliament was unrepresentative should note that any doubt that the people of Scotland support being in the UK vanished in the referendum of 2014.

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Careful words

John Fraser states that “Scotland… voted to join England”. This is not accurate. In the years leading up to the Union of 1707 Scotland was not a democracy. Shire and burgh commissioners in the Scottish Parliament were voted in by tiny electorates, and nobles sat in the Parliament only because of heredity. The majority of the population could not vote, and public opinion was expressed just through pamphlets, petitions and crowd activities. The Treaty of Union was ratified in the Scottish Parliament on 16 January 1707 by only 110 votes to 67.

He also speculates about a hypothetical event that “the King… certainly will not allow that”. This conflicts with the idea that the monarch is above politics.

Perhaps Mr Fraser is aware of The Guardian article of 17 December 2014 about the final days of the Independence Referendum campaign. In this, Severin Carrell, Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour wrote “Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, and Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, embarked on discussions to work out how the Queen might register her concerns at the prospect of a Yes vote while upholding her constitutional duty to remain wholly impartial… Geidt and Heywood then needed to fashion some words that would ensure that she remained within the bounds expected of a constitutional monarch”. There was widespread media coverage of the late Queen’s reported comment on 14 September 2014 to a bystander at Crathie Kirk, “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future”.

E Campbell, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire

Same sickness

Looking over some old Scottish newspapers at the weekend I noticed that some 13 years ago columnists were warning of “overworked nurses” and “signs that the NHS was ailing”. Yet during the intervening years, with Health Secretaries ranging from Nicola Sturgeon to Humza Yousaf, nothing seems to have changed and things have arguably become worse. So much nowadays is blamed on Covid and lack of funding from Westminster but it's clear to see that the decline in our beloved NHS started many years before and our incompetent and uninterested politicians have done nothing to stem the malaise.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirling

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

Subscribe

Subscribe at www.scotsman.com/subscriptions

Readers Letters: Government by coercion is bad for Scotland

Comments