Readers' Letters: Why did Humza Yousaf not simply sack Michael Matheson?

After his disgraceful behaviour it’s right Michael Matheson should have left his post as health secretary. The main issue now is over his “golden handshake” of almost £13,000 which I understand he is entitled to claim after resigning, but would not be eligible for if he had been sacked.

First Minister Humza Yousaf defended Michael Matheson before the Falkirk MSP finally quit his health secretary role (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

One must question why Humza Yousaf did not sack Mr Matheson when most of the country obviously felt that he should have gone. Was it through incompetence, weakness or for some other reason that the First Minister neglected to do his job properly and didn't show Mr Matheson the door? Perhaps, rather than have the taxpayer fork out more money to cover Mr Matheson's severance pay, Humza Yousaf should pay the money out of his own pocket for a job badly done!

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirlingshire

Great news!

The picture of grinning MSPs, so well fed and expensively dressed (Clark Cross, Letters, 12 February), is in sharp contrast to the troupe of shabby hopefuls whose photograph appeared in The Scotsman at the opening of the Scottish Parliament 25 years ago.

The parliament has therefore served a purpose by improving the living standards of 129 people, as well as those of their numerous hangers-on. Could that joy now be more equally extended to the rest of us please?

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood, Kinross

Last Laff?

Last month, correspondent Robert Farquharson dismissed the Laffer Curve as a valid argument against the Scottish Government’s latest tax increases (Letters, 13 January).

But now the economist Arthur Laffer himself has commented that his theory – showing how higher taxes ultimately lead to reduced revenue – is indeed relevant to our situation. Professor Laffer asks: “Who in their right mind would do what Scotland is doing? It’s the poor who will suffer when business stops investing in Scotland and moves operations and jobs to a lower tax regime.”

Higher earners are reportedly relocating south of the Border already to avoid this new financial onslaught. The Continuity SNP/Greens have once again proved beyond doubt that they are anti-wealth, anti-business and anti-growth. Therefore it is actually they, not anyone else, who are anti-Scottish.

Martin O’Gorman, Edinburgh

Good as it gets

I write in response to Brian Monteith's article, “How bad can Holyrood get without discussing its future?” (Perspective, 12 February)

During a week when Rishi Sunak made a tasteless joke at PMQs about transgender people, without having the grace to apologise, Brian Monteith's chosen example of the badness of Holyrood, namely minimum alcohol pricing and vaping, seem trivial, to say the very least.

Hopefully, a more balanced view will prevail, that whatever its faults, Holyrood has the merit of being accessible, and is here to stay. As a floating voter, I consider its election by proportional representation to be fairer than the outdated Westminster model of first past the post.

In the final analysis, it's up to us, the electors, to ensure Holyrood is as good as it can be.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Betrayal

I am deeply disappointed and frustrated with the Scottish Government's decision to approve the construction of a large scale solar farm on the small island of Cumbrae, despite overwhelming opposition from the local community, as shown by only four votes in support at the last community-wide survey out of a population of 1,300. The majority were concerned about the impact on the site's natural beauty, on local wildlife and on the potential negative impact on tourism, the lifeblood of the island.

Permission was denied by North Ayrshire Council but on appeal, the Reporter – a Scottish Government official – has approved it, but noted in his report that he wasn't asked to compare it with other more suitable sites, nor was he given an environmental report as is standard.

This decision allows a company to despoil the highest point on the island which is also the most scenic, with a 360 degree view of the spectacularly beautiful Clyde estuary.

This decision feels like a betrayal of the democratic process with complete disregard for the wishes of the people who call the island home. It sets a worrying precedent for future developments in Scotland and is the complete antithesis of the government's stated goals in their Local Place Planning initiative.

The Scottish Government has a responsibility to uphold the interests of its citizens and protect the environment. In this case they have failed on both counts.

Robert Browne, Millport, North Ayrshire

Harried

As expected, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, is still being painted as the wayward prince, while William is portrayed as the dutiful prince who gets on with his royal duties.

While Harry jetted back to sunny LA after a short visit to see his ill dad, William was dishing out honours to kneeling subjects; he should have been supporting his brother in his fight against phone-hackers and journalists who have sullied British journalism.

These are some of the same journalists who chose to ignore Harry's cry for help when he alleged that members of his family did not properly accept his partner Meghan Markle because she was a different colour. William should have been supporting his brother and Harry should have been more specific with his accusations.

Harry is hurting. If people can't see this, there must be something wrong with them, in my opinion.

Jack Fraser, Musselburgh, East Lothian

Net zero chance

What exactly is net zero and how can it ever save the planet? If the politicians who impose net zero policies on us don’t know, how can we?

Renewable energy projects, which are meant to help us reach this ambiguous, seemingly-infinite net zero target, are extremely carbon emitting. Besides the preliminaries – the sourcing of the materials in developing countries where regulations are slack; the dirty production of turbines and solar panels in foreign countries where pollution control is woefully inadequate and slave labour used; the transportation across the world on ships not powered by wind but by diesel.Once these “green products” hit our shores the real joke of “carbon neutral” begins.

Peatlands and heather moorland are dug up to allow for tens of thousands of tonnes of rebar and concrete to be poured into the land for the turbine towers, service tracks of quarried stone and Tarmac are constructed, covering once pristine wild land. Forests are felled to make space for turbines, pylons and overhead lines. The seabed is churned and pummelled by pile driving and the anchoring of offshore turbines. Prime agricultural land is covered in solar panels, substations, and battery storage units. Peatlands, moorland, forests and seabeds are some of the greatest carbon stores we have. When we destroy agricultural land for heavy industry we limit even more what we can grow to feed ourselves, resulting in needing to import food, which results in a serious accumulation of unnecessary food miles.

I wonder if the renewable energy industry knows that to keep the money coming in you have to keep emitting Co2, and the best way to do that is to destroy the very things in nature that control it. That way, net zero can never be reached and the industry can keep on growing, never really cleaning up the planet, just making billions off the back of the environment it is pretending to save – just like every other big dirty industry has in history.

Denise Davis, Kiltarlity, Highland

Call and response

Scotsman readers will have been moved by Carolyn Taylor's letter, “War crimes” (12 February) yet there is another side to this that has been forgotten.

If Hamas had not attacked Israel with utmost ferocity on 7 October Israel would never have responded.

It did, so we can see the not unexpected consequences of this action. Why did Hamas take hostages? In order to provoke exactly the response we are seeing. Hamas is using ordinary citizens as weapons in a brutal war. Some cognisance of this fact might eventually lead to a real peace when pressure is put upon Hamas to stop, not just Israel.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Safe routes

It is disappointing to see several letters critical of cyclists and cycling in The Scotsman. Cycling benefits every citizen by reducing on-road and parking congestion, reducing air pollution and improving the health of cyclists, reducing burden on the NHS. David Gordon (10 February) is quite wrong to say “there are no average folk who can cycle our hilly city” – many do and many benefit as a result. Hills there are, but also excellent cycle paths such as the Roseburn-Telford link which is close to level and heavily cycled. Instead of decrying investment and proposing to displace cyclists from this vital link for the trams, we should be widening the handful of bottlenecks to allow shared use of this precious link by trams, pedestrians and cyclists. No-one suggests restricting car use because of a small minority of bad motorists, so let’s support health and the environment by continuing to invest in safe cycle routes to maximise uptake.

(Dr) Alastair Innes, Edinburgh

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.