Readers Letters: Holyrood needs a tough and fair minded Presiding Officer

Far from being the individual who helps parliament stand up for itself against the Executive, the last Presiding Officer didn’t even hide her apparent bias towards the SNP; she prevented proper scrutiny to hold the Scottish government to account, and in particular prevented legitimate questioning from Douglas Ross when he was trying to do so, forcing him to leave the Chamber on several occasions.

History will reflect that Fergus Ewing would have been an amazing Presiding Officer, independent-minded and scrupulously without bias, he would have helped Parliament to hold the government to account. What a shame he lost his seat.

So please – for the sake of Parliament, let the patsy plot fail and give us a really strong Presiding Officer. It might also make better use of the rather plum £137,000 salary, plus gold-plated pension of course. We can’t have the poor MSPs in the same boat as most of us.

Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian

No vote

John Swinney has grown into the role of First Minister, but not in a good way. From “Honest John” and “bank manager John”, he has transitioned into Arrogant John. He is the winner and he can dictate terms to everyone else. He can exclude Reform from decent society, as he sees it, and he can impose “my values” on Scottish politics, regardless of whether they are shared by the rest of us. His “landslide victory” consisted of losing six MSP seats and 9.5 per cent of its votes, compared with 2021.

Now we have “dishonest John”, as he tells us that Keir Starmer will “discuss a referendum on independence” with him. Downing Street has, however, said that: “As the Prime Minister told the First Minister, the manifesto this government was elected on was unambiguous that ‘Labour do not support independence or another referendum’.’

As far as manifestos go, a commitment to a referendum was pledged in the SNP’s manifesto, but not in the Green Party’s manifesto, and so there cannot be said to have been majority support for one

Arrogant John now claims that he will stage a vote at Holyrood next week with the question the same as for 2014 and then publish a draft referendum bill. He should note the supremacy of the Electoral Commission in matters concerning elections, and that it refused to allow a “yes/no” vote in 2016. The appropriate format is “remain/leave”, removing the bias that a “yes/no” question – that is, positive/negative – brings.

Scotland is still a part of the UK, and the constitution is an issue reserved to Westminster.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Lack of interest

An election mandate is something which indicates a substantial amount of support across the board in support of the motion. Anything less than a majority is a clear indication that the motion fails. The latest results show that the Scottish system of voting is not fit for purpose.

The results of the 2026 Scottish election prove John Swinney, the leader of the ever-diminishing SNP, is a master of kidology, but not much else. There was a derisory 53 per cent turnout, which shows how important the people of Scotland find local elections. Of that minor turnout, only 38.2 per cent could be bothered voting for the SNP. To put things in perspective, out of the Scottish electorate for local elections of 4,283,300, only 952,296 people voted for separatist parties who wish to change the status quo. That shows that 22.23 per cent have voted in favour of parties that advocate the break-up of the Union.

The SNP share of the total turnout was 38.18 per cent. Add in the 52,528 of the Greens and you get 929,605. That is 40.46 per cent of turnout, not of the electorate. I hope Keir Starmer will be told exactly how insignificant these numbers are when John Swinney meets him. The people of Scotland have clearly shown their lack of interest in the separatist cause. In fact, the SNP share of the vote is down on 2021 by a huge margin, from 47.7 per cent of the constituency vote, but again, not of the electorate in 2021, down to 38.2 per cent and counting.

Keir Starmer should tell John Swinney to close the door behind him on the way out.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

A sorry state

As the General Assembly (May 15-18) rightfully debates a formal apology for historical links to the transatlantic slave trade, it must confront a broader, deeply damaging legacy. A truly transformative repentance requires looking beyond slavery to acknowledge a legacy of subjugation, violence and profound error.

The Church must apologise for its historic role in the persecution of women, particularly during the brutal witch-hunt trials. Furthermore, for centuries, the Kirk pushed a doctrine of, and, in some contexts, approved theological justifications for, the abuse and inequality of women, advocating for subjugation that has lasting societal consequences.

Simultaneously, the Kirk must confront its violent, repressive, and sectarian past. This includes apologising for inciting, and sometimes engaging in, widespread intolerance and persecution of religious minorities and those deemed non-believers, contributing to a climate of fear. This spirit of persecution extends to its long-term promotion of oppressive dogmas: promoting belief in eternal hellfire, a cruel unethical concept, alongside the damaging doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.

Finally, the Kirk must apologise for its historic, systematic opposition to scientific understanding and progress, hindering intellectual development and human advancement. True integrity demands acknowledging this full history of damage.

To live up to its own standards of justice and truth, the Church must apologise for these profound failures of compassion and reason. This apology is not mere “virtue-signalling” – as some critics claim – but a necessary act of moral reconciliation.

Doug Clark, Currie, Edinburgh

Travel travails

Today I tried to book two first-class rail tickets to Inverness with reserved seats for two seniors. It could not be done on either the ScotRail or Trainline apps. I phoned ScotRail and the guy couldn’t, on his screen, get past a first class booking. I took the tram up to Waverley and was directed to the Travel Centre, run by LNER, which promises to provide tickets to anywhere. The LNER person said she couldn’t, on her machine, provide me with the tickets I wanted. “Try ScotRail.” Not evident at Waverley. Took the tram to Haymarket. There a ScotRail person got me the tickets I’d tried to obtain three hours earlier online at home.

I won’t even mention the ferries to our islands, nor the Third World Turnhouse Beer Hall and Shopping Mall. Travelling in and out of Scotland is, frankly, a nightmare.

(Prof) Robert Cormack, FRSE, Edinburgh

Droning on

I note that British Transport Police are now using drones to monitor our railways (your report, 14 May). I presume that when the drone operator sleeps in a replacement bus service will be deployed instead.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

A bit of bias?

We've become used to “Penalty for Rangers” but I imagine that “Penalty for Celtic” was just as predictable given this week’s match had stretched to 90+8 minutes. It seems that Hearts will not be allowed to win the league, especially as they seemed to be denied a much more obvious penalty last week.

How refreshing it would be to see such a change of winning team, at least from a neutral's point of view. For the record I'm a Raith Rovers man but would be dancing in the streets if Hearts could do it.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Equality questions

“Pride in our Community” takes place on Leith Links this Saturday. Pride has a proud tradition, and the “Pride for All” billing sounds admirably inclusive. However, the online publicity is more revealing.

The chevroned Progress Pride flags, the use of the term “queer”, and the bundling of sexual orientation – the LGB – with gender identity – the TQ+ – will be understood by many as signalling adherence to contested claims about gender, and to the relationship between the rights of women and same-sex-attracted people, and the rights of trans-identified people. The Facebook reference to the event as a space for “anger” will, surely, be read by some as a response to the Supreme Court’s recent Equality Act ruling on sex.

This all raises a fair question. Does “Pride for All” include people – LGB, T+ or otherwise – who hold that sex is real, material and not overridden by gender identity? Such gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act. Yet there is nothing in the publicity to reassure those who hold them that they are included in “our community” at all.

That matters because the organisers, Equality Network and its Scottish Trans project, receive public funding, and the event is taking place on City of Edinburgh Council-managed Common Good land.

If a publicly supported event on public land chills or excludes people for holding protected beliefs, or assumes that all LGB people subscribe to “LGBTQ+” or “queer” politics, Equality Act questions surely arise.

Brian Forsyth, 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, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.