Readers' Letters: Oh the irony of Swinney slamming Reeves for 'misleading public'

The SNP's form in this regard is well documented. Responses to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are routinely refused, delayed or redacted beyond comprehension.

Pressure is regularly exerted – in some cases successfully – upon what should be independent bodies such as Public Health Scotland, the National Records of Scotland and the OECD to alter and/or delay reports. Even the Auditor General himself has been subjected to pressure to alter reports!

Most recently the Information Commissioner issued a report slamming the SNP for its handling of an FOI request relating to the notorious investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon breached the ministerial code. Since 2021 the SNP have been ducking and diving in an attempt to withhold the facts from public scrutiny. Four years on the Commissioner records that still the SNP are “wrongly withholding some information”.

As if it wasn't bad enough that the public have been kept in the dark, the SNP have squandered hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to finance their unconscionable evasion! Have any ministers ever been held accountable? Before dishing out accusations John Swinney needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Colin Hamilton, Edinburgh

Straight talker?

John Swinney is a brave man. He is calling for Chancellor Rachel Reeves to resign as she has not been “straight” with the public.

Mr Swinney's party is still contesting who is a man and who is a woman.

Mr Swinney's party gave us all guarantees we would be seen promptly by the NHS. Mr Swinney, himself, deleted valuable information during the Covid crisis that ought to have been kept.

Ms Reeves ought to resign for sure but is Mr Swinney entirely without blame?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Cold comforts

November has gone and still no letter regarding the heating allowance. “Honest John” Swinney bragged that the Scottish payment would be £305, more than English payment of £300.

What he forgot to mention was that some pensioners might only get £203 and some as little as £101.

Elizabeth Hands, Armadale, West Lothian

Well, Nicola...

I am sure many people who voted for Kate Forbes to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader and First Minister will have noted Ms Sturgeon’s no doubt sincere lamentations on Scotland being denied a female leader “anytime soon” (your report, 29 November).

Surely it cannot have escaped even the former first minister’s selective memory that it was her actions and those of her own supporters which prevented a hugely talented young woman of undoubted professional competency, genuine warmth, voter appeal and personal integrity from becoming SNP leader and First Minister.

Jim Eadie, Former SNP MSP for Edinburgh Southern, Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire

A little humility?

Nicola Sturgeon seems obsessed with womanhood and would love to portray herself as a trailblazer, having led the SNP in Scotland. The majority of us in Scotland didn’t bat an eyelid at the three main parties being led by women.

Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale led their parties from 2011 and 2015 respectively. Unlike Sturgeon, both these women won elections to become leader, Davidson beating Murdo Fraser and Dugdale winning against Ken Macintosh. Not only did Ruth Davidson become leader but she succeeded another woman, Annabel Goldie, who had been leader since 2005.

Ms Sturgeon, unlike these women, was mentored by Alex Salmond and put in a position to take over as leader. When he resigned after the failed independence referendum in 2014, she was crowned leader unopposed.

Ms Sturgeon should perhaps remember that the UK has had three female Prime Ministers, starting in 1979 with Margaret Thatcher, a woman who became leader of the Conservative party in 1975, a massive 39 years before Sturgeon became leader of the SNP.

Women have been trailblazers long before Sturgeon was old enough to go to school. Perhaps a little humility would not go amiss.

Jane Lax, Aberlour, Moray

Fishing for help

The Shetland Islands are a vital component of the Scottish and UK economies.

Since the inauguration of the Sullom Voe oil terminal in the late Sixties to large onshore windfarm developments, together with the Spaceport development in Unst, the Islands punch far above their economic weight.

However, it is crucial that traditional industries like the fishing industry, which have been the bedrock of communities on the islands for decades, are not sacrificed in a rush for growth.

The concerns expressed by the Shetland Fishermen’s Association need to taken seriously by both Westminster and Holyrood and ensure that suitable protection is put in place for their survival given their vital contribution to the UK Fishing Industry.

DG McIntyre, Edinburgh

Equality for some

Susan Dalgety’s article (Perspective, 29 November) on the latest attempt to remove The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht from public view deserves the fullest endorsement.

That a group of academics and activists saw fit to send a censorious letter to the National Library of Scotland – implying that the presence of a book creates a “hostile environment” – should appal anyone who believes in cultural and intellectual freedom.

What is most egregious is that a co-signatory to this letter also chairs the Equality Network, an organisation which has for years received generous support from the Scottish Government. It is incredible that taxpayers are expected to fund bodies which use their influence to police thought, suppress women’s speech and intimidate public institutions into subscribing to a contested gender identity theory.

Citizens of every viewpoint should be free to read, write and debate without the Chair of a quasi-official body attempting to silence them. Public money should not be used to empower those who believe disagreement is a form of harm.

For organisations like the Equality Network, it seems clear this is not about the wellbeing of trans-identifying people. It is about prosecuting a culture war in which women’s boundaries, artistic expression, and even the interests of ordinary trans-identifying people are just so much collateral damage.

Brian Forsyth, Edinburgh

Make a wheesht

For Women Scotland (FWS) is a campaigning organisation of volunteers. It endeavours to protect and promote women’s rights and women’s interests, especially in the face of predatory men. Its victories in court, including in the highest court in the land, have been landmark events.

Robert Menzies seems to have mistaken FWS for a policy-making body (Letters, 2 December). He raises hypothetical cases which may need consideration after FWS’s victory in the Supreme Court and complains that FWS has not produced solutions to them. If there are indeed “anomalies” resulting from the Supreme Court decision in April 2025, it is up to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and/or legislators to address them, not the successful party in that case.

There is nothing surprising, or indeed anomalous, about FWS holding their wheesht about Mr Menzies’ fixation with “anomalies”.

The most blatant anomaly resulting from the Supreme Court case is the failure of the loser, the SNP Scottish Government, to pay FWS the sum awarded to it by the Supreme Court.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

E-scooter danger

The Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow has warned of the danger of buying e-scooters and e-bikes for children after an alarming number of serious injuries (your report, 28 November).

This warning is timely with Christmas fast approaching. In the UK, privately owned e-scooters can only be used on private land with the owner's permission.

More than one million have been purchased and the majority are being used illegally on UK roads and pavements. There are about 1,400 collisions every year and last year there were 444 people seriously injured and 940 slightly injured, including pedestrians who were mowed down while walking on the pavements.

Sadly, there were also deaths. In England there is a trial using hired e-scooters to determine if privately owned e-scooters should be allowed legally on English roads.

Scottish politicians are eagerly awaiting this since they want to allow it, claiming that it would “save the planet”.

Every police force in England is confiscating and destroying privately owned e-scooters, so when will Police Scotland do the same?

My Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland for the number of e-scooters confiscated was refused since it would cost more than £600. I had not realised that Police Scotland were still using paper and pencil for statistics.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow West Lothian

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.