Thin line between advice and political service

Perhaps permanent secretary Sir Peter Housden could have been more circumspect in the phrasing of communications and memos to his staff on the question of Scotland’s constitutional future (your report, 1 October). But this revelation showed that John McTernan is acutely sensitive to the whole question of independence and the referendum that is pending (Comment).

He raised a number of red herrings over the role of the civil service in the entire process. I’m sure he must know that the Scottish Government can only organise a consultative poll under the existing arrangements. The administration in Holyrood knows it, although it must be hoping that an accommodation can be reached with Westminster to ensure that only one vote is necessary. He knows, too, that there will be major challenges for the civil service machine in providing all sorts of details on Scotland’s share of the national debt, the future of the military bases, the taxation system, citizenship, home security and so on.

I cannot believe that Sir Peter and his colleagues will provide advice on anything other than an impartial basis. He recognises, of course, the scale of the mandate the SNP was given in the election last May. But Mr McTernan has no reason to believe that Sir Peter doesn’t know where the dividing line is between someone operating under the civil service code and someone who is a special adviser to a senior politician, be it First Minister Alex Salmond or anyone else. There is a big difference between strict impartiality and a sort of administrative sclerosis whereby civil servants act passively and only produce detailed work when they are told. Sir Peter and his team can enhance the reputation of the service while still rising to the challenges an important moment in Scotland’s history presents.

BOB TAYLOR

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife

Reading the “Dear Colleagues” memos Sir Peter sent quite literally took my breath away. There appears not to have been even a scintilla of restraint for what, at times, borders on what would pass for party political election addresses and virtually cheerleading for his boss.

Is he really unaware that the taxes that pay his £185,000 salary are taken from the earnings and assets of every taxpayer, not the 20 per cent or so of the total electorate who chose to vote SNP at the last Holyrood election?

Far from being comparable with the fawning but fictional Sir Humphrey and Malcom Tucker, Sir Peter’s kowtowing adulation for Mr Salmond would have embarrassed these figures.

Can our top civil servants, being paid these huge salaries by all of us, really not understand the basic principle of political impartiality?

ALEXANDER McKAY

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh