It can’t give their party members much confidence when so many of their big guns either opt out of government or opt out of standing for the leadership, with John Swinney, Angus Robertson and Keith Brown all conspicuous by their reluctance to step forwards, no-one at Westminster seemingly interested, and in addition, there was a whole swathe of party notables who stood down at the Scottish elections last year.

It doesn’t seem that there is any history-making constitutional vote imminent, otherwise they would all have wanted to have been a part of it.

It seems as if the years of playground politics are coming to a head, and the SNP is running out of road.

Deputy First Minister John Swinney has announced he will step down as Deputy First Minister (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

There are just too many issues closing in on them, and they cant keep up the pretence any longer.

We all thought Ms Sturgeon herself would have had to be dragged kicking and screaming from office, but she went pretty quickly, too, in the end, with no real analysis of the reasons why yet, and very little commentary on the situation since that happened.

Of course, the opposition aren’t that much better, and are unlikely to displace them any time soon, so the best that we can hope for is that one of their leadership candidates recognises the reality of the situation, and tries to concentrate on the job in hand, as a minority administration if needs be.

If that is not possible, may we have an election in May please, and we can chance our luck with somebody else?

Victor Clements, Aberfeldy, Perthshire

Doom speak

Now that Deputy First Minister John Swinney is going, who will the next First Minister use when there's bad news to deliver?

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Last days of SNP?

First it was Nicola Sturgeon's resignation from out of the blue. Now suddenly it is John Swinney. Conspiracy theories are far too prevalent these days but this is highly unexpected. Nicola Sturgeon said she had left the party in “good shape” after her resignation. That is obviously nonsense as the new candidates fight it out. Mr Swinney was therefore supposed to be the “calming influence" but now that is gone too. Can the SNP survive this at all?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Calling teachers

While I am now retired, I spent my whole professional life in education and it strikes me that teachers who take industrial action over remuneration are both demeaning themselves and giving out the wrong message to their pupils.

The example being set by striking is: “If you don't get what you want then get riled up and stroppy!” Surely not a good lesson for youngsters!In my teaching years, both myself and my staff considered our profession a calling. We had to be paid, of course, but I never remember any member of staff moaning about money. They each knew that they were in the school to educate their pupils to the best of their ability and for the benefit of the community and future generations.

Sadly, in the late 1970s it was the main teacher’s union, The Educational Institute of Scotland, who pressured the Education Committees of local Councils to reduce the length of all teaching days by half an hour. All pupils were then robbed of 80 hours of education per annum and about 960 hours over their entire school lifetime.

I have no doubt that Scottish education suffered because of that and I can't believe that seeing teachers walking the streets in 2023, wearing brightly coloured clothing and carrying placards in order to get greater remuneration is a good example for the pupils of today and the citizens of tomorrow!

Teaching the young is a calling not just a job!

Archibald A Lawrie, Kingskettle, Fife

Erect borders

Richard Holloway claims that “the secular mind is intolerant of those who practise a religion that does not conform to its own values” (your report, 2 March).What does Mr Holloway know of “the secular mind”? He sees people reacting to Ms Forbes’ personal views and assumes that they must be secularist. But a secularist is someone who, while tolerating religious stances in individuals, strongly objects to religious views influencing public policy or practices. We object only to religious privilege and want Church and State to be kept apart. I doubt it was secularists who objected to Kate Forbes’ personal religious views, influenced as they are by the Calvinist Free Church of Scotland.One hopes and expects that, whatever part Ms Forbes plays in the government of Scotland, she ensures that her personal religious views do not influence SNP policy.

Steuart Campbell, Secretary, Edinburgh Secular Society

Midas tartan

The SNP’s Deposit Return Scheme – conveniently passed on to the feckless Greens – is proving to be a re-run of the Census fiasco. They could not simply accept in each case that a UK-wide system would benefit everyone. They had to put on a Scottish label, at whatever cost, and certainly in the case of returning containers, economic self-harm.

Other countries have introduced the system with the minimum of fuss or disruption. But when nationalism and nationalists get in control and insist on a “Scottification” of any plan, the ‘’reverse Midas’’ syndrome kicks in and it is certain disaster.

They could not be seen to be working and co-operating with the rest of the UK, could they?

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Paddy whacked?

Where oh where has the green pimpernel Patrick Harvie gone?

While Lorna Slater, his Green co-leader, has been getting pelters for the ill-fated Deposit Return Scheme he has been conspicuous by his absence.

Is he starting to bottle it? Perhaps he feels the whole sheme should be canned?

Brian Petrie, Edinburgh

Microscopic detail

It is right and proper that there be an expectation that the Covid-19 Public Inquiries publish their reports as quickly as possible (Scotsman Editorial, 3 March).

But these inquiries cannot be quick because of the mass and complexity of evidence to be considered, the need for evidence to be taken from many sufferers of infection and the relatives of those who died from it, and the need to be fair to those deemed to have fallen short by giving them the opportunity to respond to criticism before the reports are published.

It was a privilege for me to chair two inquiries into lethal E.coli O157 outbreaks, the first in Scotland in 1996, and the second in South Wales in 2005. The first submitted its final report after four months. It focused on preventative recommendations, was held behind closed doors at St Andrew's House, and cost £45,000. The second was a Public Inquiry. It took three years and cost more than £2 million. It concluded that lessons had been learned after the 1996 outbreak, but then forgotten. My two inquiries considered exactly the same microbe. But nobody knows which one will cause the next pandemic; it could be very different from Covid, so it is a mistake to think that “lessons learned” – even if they are remembered – will automatically turn out to be pandemic panaceas.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Be sceptical

It has been reported that America’s FBI now believes a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the probable source of the Covid-19 epidemic. It is remarkable that given enough time and money a vast government agency can come to the same conclusion that a layman armed with common sense and Occam’s razor likely came to two years ago.

Also, we now find from the treasure trove of WhatsApp messages released by the journalist Isabel Oakeshott that during the pandemic, as some of us has long suspected, the government was making it up as they went along. They even contemplated killing the nations 11 million cats!

Bearing all these examples in mind, should we not be a little bit more sceptical of the conventional wisdom of the political and media classes?

In particular, should we not ask ourselves whether climate change and the human contribution to it have perhaps been grossly exaggerated, and also whether the extreme actions being urged on us by the great and the good to achieve “net zero” might perhaps be entirely unjustified?

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife

Define ‘control’

I noticed that Boris Johnson said he might not vote for Rishi Sunak's deal with Northern Ireland because it would involve “losing control”.

Has Boris or any of the Brexiteers thought what their stock phrase means? In order to have international trade, all the parties must agree to common regulations governing this trade otherwise chaos would ensue.

In the glorious days of the British Empire all power regarding this resided with Westminster, so there was no problem. If we are now to “take control” as the Brexiteers want this means putting the whole European court under the control of Westminster.

Has the former prime minister thought about that?

H Belda, Penicuik, Midlothian

Baby voting box

Interesting picture on the front page of The Scotsman yesterday of Finance Secretary Kate Forbes and a baby. Anybody would think there was some kind of election going on!

William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian

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: Why are top-tier SNP people stepping away?