Readers' Letters: SNP can’t be allowed to rush us into election

It appears that Nicola Sturgeon has decreed that there should be no political campaigning prior to the Holyrood election in May, except for by herself obviously. In a time of Covid, leafleting is deemed to be too risky.

Nicola Sturgeon should delay Scottish elections, says reader

If that is the case, then the election needs to be postponed for six months, because if the public cannot engage with those seeking election, then the opportunity for democratic debate and scrutiny does not exist. An online campaign sidelines those people who do not do their politics in that way, and this would hand too much undue advantage to the party in power, which is presumably the point of all this.

There are three other points to consider. Firstly, in 2016 Nicola Sturgeon said that her government would be judged on education, but the OECD report on this will not be published until June. She can therefore only be judged after that point.

Secondly, this business of the Alex Salmond accusations and the aftermath to those needs to be cleared up in advance of any election, and it appears at the moment that the tactic is to try and run down the clock so that the committee investigating this runs out of time.

Thirdly, and most importantly, we need the pandemic to pass and for people to have time to reflect on this and decide in their own minds what the priorities for the future actually are.

The SNP don’t deserve a moment longer in power than is strictly necessary, but they must not be able to rush us through an election in which only they are able to effectively have their say. Scotland is becoming more like a banana republic without the bananas every day. This is not going to end well.

Victor Clements

Aberfeldy, Perthshire

Deliver truth

The Lord Advocate’s unreserved, albeit belated, apology to Messrs Paul Clark and David Whitehouse was an unprecedented, ignominious and humiliating experience for the Scottish Government’s principal Law Officer.

The latest development in this saga is the announcement that the Lord Advocate supports an independent inquiry to establish how they (and perhaps others?) were maliciously prosecuted. Ultimately, such a decision is for the Scottish Government, which hopefully will have learned from the calamitous failures culminating with the charade of what is now known as “The Salmond Inquiry”.

I know none of the dramatis personae in this tragedy but empathise with the personal and reputational damage to those innocents, their families, careers and that their professional and personal integrity has been so publicly traduced.

The apology does not address the pernicious vice which must have existed to have allowed these insidious events to have occurred in the name of the Crown.

The Lord Advocate suggests that the malicious prosecution was not based on individual malicious actings. Are the public expected to believe such humbug? Ultimately, someone authorised those prosecutions. The exchequer cost exceeds £24,000,000 and there remain several actions against the Crown, in at least two of which it has admitted liability. The final cost is rising inexorably. The Lord Advocate at the time of this iniquity is now a Senator of the College of Justice. The Scottish legal system, which has been a bastion of our society for centuries and was once the envy of many, is now held up to public opprobrium and its reputation has been sullied.

The compensation awarded is the best our system allows to redress personal interests.

There is, however, a wider and even more important interest, which is that of the public, and unless there is an inquiry led by a Judge from outwith Scotland with authority to hold those accountable for this atrocious abuse of power, including compelling witnesses to appear, we will be denied the benefit of the adage “that justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done”. There is no stateable reason for delay.

Graeme McKinstry

(Retired Solicitor)Queen's Court HouseSandgate, Ayr

EU poll needed

Professor Marc Weller’s article on Scottish EU accession (Perspective, February 16) deserves some comment.

Firstly, when will the SNP government hold a referendum on Scottish EU membership? No mention has been made of this. If the changed circumstances of Brexit justify Indyref2, then the same circumstances demand a referendum on EU membership – 62 per cent of Scots voting for the UK to remain in the EU does not mean a majority of Scots would want an independent Scotland to join the EU, especially taking into account the consequences of Brexit.

Secondly, keeping the island of Ireland border-free to secure the Irish peace process was a major Brexit-deal stumbling block. There is no such peace process across the open Scotland-England border. What benefit would there be for the EU in wasting time and effort negotiating new trade arrangements with the Westminster government specifically for the Scottish border, just to accommodate Scottish membership? Scotland would have to sign up to the EU’s post-Brexit trade deal. A hard border with England is the only possible outcome. As an independent country it would be entirely Scotland’s problem to deal with the consequences of this.

Thirdly, there is the SNP assumption of EU funding for parts of Scotland with geographically disadvantaged status. However, if an independent Scotland would be the world’s 15th wealthiest country (a frequent claimed by some Scotsman letter writers), the EU would expect Scotland to contribute far more than we receive in special funding. Still carrying the costs of the financial crisis, the Greek debt crisis and Covid, EU members are unlikely to want to accept a new member holding out the begging bowl for funds, whilst simultaneously claiming fabulous wealth.

If the SNP are serious about democracy, a referendum on EU membership is essential, with Scots honestly informed of the full consequences of membership.

Donald McCallum

Crosskirk Crescent, Strathaven

It’s SNP for me

Yesterday’s letters page provided an excellent “screenshot” of many Scots’ fondness for talking down their nation. David Millar doubts the intelligence and intellect of the elected “SNP Scottish Government”; William Ballantyne can’t conceal his glee over public differences of opinion within the broad Yes movement; and in the space of two paragraphs the (Rev Dr) John Cameron bizarrely links Nicola Sturgeon’s daily public health briefings to recent authoritarian events in Burma and Poland.

Folks – in common with national administrations anywhere across the world, ours no doubt has its shortcomings but I don’t perceive an abundance of talent waiting in the wings of the opposition Tory, Labour and Lib Dem parties to save us (Douglas Ross or Alex Cole-Hamilton for First Minister, anyone?). Instead the unionist parties offer Scots the bleak prospect of: (1) isolation from our European neighbours and trading partners; (2) reduction in our food, health and employment standards; (3) the imminent disempowering of our own democratic Holyrood Parliament and agencies. While it is refreshing to see a range of opinions aired, a more pressing issue of concern to most Scots in the real world now is how best to overturn the democratic deficit predicament that is blighting the future prosperity of our nation and the well-being of its citizens.

D Jamieson

Montague Street, Edinburgh

Don’t assume

In her Scottish Perspective contribution (February 19), Joyce McMillan expresses concerns about how tolerant a society we have in Scotland. Unfortunately, it appears that unless you agree with her in relation to the strategies to be used to challenge the racism undoubtedly endemic in our society, you are of the extreme right, illiberal and part of the problem.

Ms McMillan highlights responses to the fact that some players, on each side, did not “take the knee” prior to the recent England v Scotland Six Nations rugby international. Those who celebrated the lack of unity in the gesture are denounced by Joyce McMillan as being right wing, whilst denying “to a man and woman that they are racists”.

That is nothing short of offensive; it must be legitimate in a liberal democracy to debate the grounds for and effectiveness of this particular gesture, and it is not necessarily an indication that someone who does not agree with it is a racist, although they may be.

One of the reasons some people, who are no more or less racist than Ms McMillan, have doubts about taking the knee in particular is that it has become politicised and has lost its original focus. In addition, it could be argued that it is a superficial distraction and doesn’t even begin to tackle the endemic racism in our society.

I agree with Ms McMillan that societal attitudes in Scotland are less tolerant and society is becoming increasingly divided. It’s ironic that the independence movement which Joyce McMillan espouses is actively fomenting intolerance towards England and the English people, at any and every opportunity, through mainstream media, social media, education and so on. This is as unacceptable as any other form of discrimination.

Keith Wilson

St Teresa Place, Edinburgh

EU hypocrite

There is surely more than a little irony that Lord David Frost has been drafted into the UK Cabinet to take charge of forging a new relationship with the European Union.

So, the man who negotiated our exit from the EU, ending rule by so-called “unelected bureaucrats”, is now not only an unelected bureaucrat himself but also a member of the Cabinet.

Not elected by anyone in the country, he won’t be accountable in the House of Commons to any of those who have.

This government’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Alex Orr

Marchmont Road, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid Letters to the Editor in your subject line.

A message from the Editor

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.