Readers' Letters: Why don't you try improving the country, Mr Swinney?

It was not a good night for the SNP. John Swinney is taking the blame for the failed general election campaign. Maybe he should have tried tombstoning off London Bridge into the Thames or free soloing up the Houses of Parliament. It seemed to work for Ed Davey.

Or maybe he could concentrate on doing his job competently for the benefit of the Scottish people rather than muddling along constantly distracted by the obsession of independence and blaming Westminster for every debacle. He could start by creating a more vibrant and sustainable economy, completing the ferry building programme, expediting the dualling of the A9, creating the promised National Care Service, building more social housing, meeting the environmental targets, reducing NHS waiting lists and A&E waiting times, reforming the education system, improving the roads and so on and so on.

There's enough there to be going on with rather than his intention of “re-engaging with the Scottish people” to persuade them that independence is the panacea for all ills. Surely this election will have rammed home the message that, unlike the notorious ferries, that ship has sailed.

First Minister John Swinney yesterday after the SNP's general election humiliation (Picture: Michael Boyd/Getty Images)

Colin Hamilton, Edinburgh

Face reality

For at least the last 12 years the effectiveness of political leadership in the UK has been severely limited by two constitutional issues, the UK’s relationship with Europe and Scotland’s relationship with the UK.

With the election this week of a UK Labour government holding a large majority, it appears that the result of the 2016 Brexit referendum will finally be accepted and the reality of that unfortunate decision accepted. Labour's priority appears to be to address the issues that are important to people in this country, such as the economy, the health service and education. At the same time they intend to take steps to improve co-operation with Europe in the context of no longer being a member of the EU.

In terms of Scottish independence, the SNP has never accepted the result of the 2014 referendum and has persistently tried to keep that debate alive. Their most recent effort was to declare this week’s election a “de-facto referendum” on the basis that every vote for them would be a vote for independence.

Well, the de-facto referendum results are in and there were just over 700,000 votes cast for the SNP, representing around 30 per cent of the total votes cast.

Clearly independence is not the main priority for the Scottish electorate.

Unfortunately, I suspect it is too much to hope that the SNP Government will accept the reality of the situation. That would mean ceasing to manufacture grievances against Westminster and whinging about a “democratic deficit”; rather, they would focus on constructive co-operation with the incoming UK Government to improve the lives of people in Scotland who are largely facing the same issues as people living elsewhere in the UK.

George Rennie, Inverness

Be strong

It is the disgust for 14 years’ of Tory rule that is the primary reason there was a Labour landslide. The disgust is also evident from the fact that the overall percentage of vote casted has gone down by 8 per cent. Our new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has landed a huge responsibility and I hope his unassuming personality is strong enough to bear these burdens.

Hasan Beg, Kirkcaldy, Fife

Stalemate

At long last a new light is appearing on the political horizon. At Westminster most of the SNP members have been shown the door – almost a complete wipe-out for the Nationalist cause. Sadly, for the majority of Scottish voters the next election for seats in the Scottish Parliament is not scheduled to take place until spring 2026.

And since the SNP do not have a majority at Holyrood – having to rely on the unelected Greens for support – little progress will be made during the intervening period. Such a situation is completely unacceptable.

It would be better for Scotland, and all of its people, if an election was called later this year. Having to wait two years to see off the failed SNP is just not acceptable.

Meantime it is obvious that a situation will develop at Holyrood with a strong force of non-SNP members ensuring that Swinney and his band are held accountable for all failures in policy and other important matters – sheer stalemate!

Robert I G Scott, Northfield, Ceres, Fife

Scaredy cats?

If unionist politicians are so convinced that a bad general election for the SNP puts an end to independence why are they so afraid of a referendum?

There’s frustration and disillusion with Westminster politics and the way to end it in Scotland would be through simple democracy – give the Scottish Parliament the power to hold an independence referendum. Put the legislation in place for the Holyrood elections in 2026.

As in Northern Ireland, put a seven-year minimum on a referendum re-run, which means there has to be a Holyrood election before another referendum can happen. If the public don’t want it they won’t vote for it. It’s all very simple and all very democratic. What are Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar afraid of?

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

One nation

What's this about four nations in the UK? We are not a confederation; the UK is a unified nation, albeit with three devolved administrations.

The former independent nations of Scotland and England were united as Great Britain (GB) in 1707 and Ireland was united with GB in 1800. Since independence for most of Ireland in 1922, Northern Ireland (Ulster) became a British province and Wales lost its independence in 1707, becoming a British principality.

“Four nations” is nonsense; there's only one nation: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Of course “United” in that title doesn't refer to Scotland and England but to Great Britain and Ireland (an anachronism since there is no longer a Kingdom of Ireland).

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

PR needed

There can be nothing that more clearly demonstrates the need for electoral reform than the general election results.

With 34 per cent of the vote, Labour secured 64 per cent of the seats. While the Liberal Democrats achieved 12 per cent of the vote, they secured 11 per cent of the seats, with Reform, by contrast, surpassing this with 14 per cent of the vote, but only receiving 1 per cent of the seats.

Given the increasingly multi-party nature of our democracy, these distortions will only worsen.

The system is clearly broken, and we vitally need the introduction of proportional representation to restore faith in it.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Slowing down

I live in a street in Edinburgh's West End which for many years, particularly after Covid, saw many vehicles travelling well above the 20mph limit – and in some cases extremely so.

Over the last few months, though, I've noticed a very distinct slowing of vehicles where almost all are at, or very, near 20mph and virtually none of the previous speedsters appear. It’s much quieter too.

There are no speed limiting measures on our street so I can only conclude that the city-wide 20mph limit has had the desirable outcome of altering the mindset of very many drivers, for the benefit of all road users, pedestrians and residents.

Mark Dutton, Edinburgh

Catch 22

Donald Trump supporters were no doubt celebrating the decision last week by the US Supreme Court that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for illegal acts where it forms part of an “official” purpose. They seem to think that this will exonerate Donald Trump from an impending prosecution and a possible jail sentence regarding the 6 January 2020 riots. However, I think their optimism is seriously misplaced because there is another side to that particular coin.

Joe Biden is currently the sitting president. As such the ruling now enables him to carry out a potentially illegal “official act” safe in the knowledge he can’t be prosecuted.

For instance, there would be nothing to stop him removing American citizenship from Donald Trump. This would be based on him being a perceived threat to national security by his behaviour in inciting the 6 January insurrection (US citizenship can be removed for acts deemed treasonous). The direct effect of that would be that Trump could not run for president despite being a natural born citizen of the United States.

His lawyers would no doubt argue that Biden does not have that authority to do this because Trump has not been found guilty of treason by a court of law. Biden’s actions must therefore be illegal. But hang on, the Supreme Court has just said it can’t be illegal as it is an official act by a sitting president.

If subsequently called to pass judgment on Biden’s actions the Supreme Court judges would either have to endorse their own recent interpretation of the constitution – and de facto prevent Trump from running – or else they would have to reverse their original decision, thereby leaving him vulnerable to prosecution and jail.

The six Trump nominees in the Supreme Court have inadvertently created the ultimate Catch 22.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

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.