It’s too far into the season of mellow fruitfulness to take the time to completely dissect most of things Andrew HN Gray says (Letters, 23 December) except perhaps to chide him on the insult aimed at Cat Boyd’s thinking processes.
For Mr Gray’s information, Cat Boyd is a published author and an active member of the Radical Independence Campaign and as such unlikely to get on side with the Tories.
As an informed commentator on matters of independence, Mr Gray should have known that.
Also in a spirit of goodwill, I have to agree with him that Labour made a complete hash of the economy.
Where we will diverge is how we should deal with the aftermath and the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has borrowed more in five years than Labour did in 13. It should give us pause to wonder whether an unsuccessful austerity programme which hits the most vulnerable hardest while rewarding the better-off is really what the citizens of the UK wish to see.
William Ballantine (Letters, same day) is correct when he says that turnout at the last Scottish election was around 50 per cent.
However, those who bothered to turn up voted overwhelmingly for the SNP and so he is wrong to say that we did not get the party we voted for.
On a positive note, it seems highly likely that the turnout at the 2016 Scottish election will be much higher and that must be to the general good.
And finally, can I end by wishing all The Scotsman’s readers and letters writers and the long-suffering Letters editorial staff a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year.
Andrew HN Gray writes that “a separate Scotland would have to adhere to judgments made by the European Court of Human Rights”.
An independent Scotland would probably choose to adhere to such judgments since it would probably accept the European Declaration of Human Rights.
This would be a choice by a sovereign state, unlike the imposition of a UK Supreme Court and its judgments contrary to the spirit of undertakings given to Scotland at the time of the 1707 Union.