Readers Letters: SNP might gain appeal if they had more than one policy

This reminds me of the ancient joke about the man in an asylum who was asked why he kept banging his head against the wall. He replied that it was because it was such a relief when he stopped. It will be the same for the Scottish people and for the Scottish Nationalists if they could only come up with actual policies, but they only have one. Then they could think about encouraging industry to come here and create employment or simply encourage Scots to set up their own companies.

Instead, they do keep banging their collective head against the wall without any apparent realisation that they have already asked the independence question and received a remarkably clear response: No.

What is actually needed is what the Canadians have. It's called a Clarity Act. It codifies how any province might break away from the rest of Canada. Their House of Commons is central to any such decision, as is our own. The Act makes it clear (thus, clarification) that there must be an absolute majority to do so in various ways, ie over 50 per cent of the electorate as a minimum. Suggestions have been made that a two-thirds majority should apply, though this has not been settled. Nonetheless, that is the majority required by the SNP themselves to change their party constitution. That sounds about right.

Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh

No democracy

What does the UK have in common with Russia? It's not a difficult question. Answer: it's having governing parties that don't like decisions made by their electorate that differ from what they want.

Right now, we have Keir Starmer's Labour Party and the Brexit referendum which they didn't like, so they are just ignoring it and trying to get us back under the Brussels thumb with no say this time.

In the same way, the SNP seek to ignore/bypass/over-ride the independence referendum. What neither “progressive” party likes is when the electorate express an opinion of their own to decide an issue once and for all that differs from theirs. The powers-that-be seek to limit it, as if it was an election. No. It is a defining decision on a thorny topic which the politicians decided was a poisoned chalice. They thought that if the people decided, that would be that. They thought their standpoint would win, but look at Alex Salmond in his car on the night that Scotland decided decisively to remain British, or David Dimbleby's face when he announced that the UK was leaving the EU. Stunned, both.

The Establishment (and the SNP are definitely that in Scotland, like it or not) does not like us making up our own minds, just like Putin's Russia. If you think we're all that different, you're wrong. They will keep on asking the same question in the hope of a different answer. If not, as with Starmer, they just ignore what you have decided. Democracy? That's a laugh.

You may think you have decided something, but they have other ideas. Our rulers are just a little bit more subtle when they shaft you.

Dave Anderson, Aberdeen

Plan for health

The front page of the Scotsman yesterday reports from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh their opinion that “The NHS is unlikely to survive in its current form”.

With more than 50 years as a doctor in the NHS, I could not agree more. It is time for courageous change. With the phenomenal success of medical research in recent decades it is inevitable we will always face difficult challenges in choosing priorities for healthcare delivery.

It is therefore simply wrong to rely on politicians to make decisions about healthcare priorities when their time in office is short term and they consistently look for the popular vote. I suggest the time has come to create a non-party “Health Commission” consisting of 15-20 informed individuals to serve a five-year term, renewable once to allow for ten-year planning. Under the chairmanship of a non-medic (possibly a judge) doctors, nurses, managers, psychologists, social workers, economists etc could be elected to represent society’ needs in a more measured way than the present short-termism. The budget would have to be set by politicians but the priority setting would be independent.

My second suggestion addresses the problem that too many disillusioned young doctors are leaving the NHS to work abroad. If we have trained them in the NHS surely it is reasonable to commit them to remain in the NHS for some time after qualifying. A contract for a minimum of five years does not seem inappropriate, provided there are enough training posts for them to pursue their chosen speciality, or ones identified by the Commission as having special need.

We are at risk of all sorts of false promises from politicians in the coming weeks. Let us plan to relieve them of their responsibility and make party agnostic decisions for the long term future of our health service.

(Prof) John Smyth, Emeritus professor of Medical Oncology, University of Edinburgh

Labour’s bad day

What a great result for the Greens at the Gorton and Denton by-election, beating Reform UK by more than 4,000 votes. Labour, despite having an excellent candidate, came in a miserable third. The Tories were eclipsed, with a mere 706 votes.

While there was undoubtedly tactical voting, with both the Greens and Reform UK benefiting from Labour and Conservative discontent respectively, well gone are the days of a Labour/Tory duopoly.

Too much must not be made of this by-election result. Nevertheless, it’s great to see the positive Greens overcoming the threat of the negatives of Reform UK. Above all, this is a damning verdict on the Government and, in particular, Keir Starmer.

We will never know if the result would have been any different had not Andy Burnham been cynically blocked from standing. This result represents Keir Starmer's second worst nightmare

At least, he can comfort himself with the fact that Reform UK didn't win – small comfort, indeed.

Roll on the local elections, in England, Scotland and Wales on 7 May, now an even more daunting prospect for Labour and Keir Starmer.

Ian Petrie, Edinburgh

Decency triumphs

The superb win by the Green Party in the Gorton and Denton by-election merely highlighted the distaste felt by the majority of this constituency’s electorate towards Reform.

This is a parliamentary seat Reform must have felt they only needed to turn up for to win. Up against a lame duck Labour government still reeling from the massive blunder of excluding the popular Andy Burnham from standing while spreading its far-right toxic agenda throughout the weeks before the count, surely it must have been a shoo-in for Reform’s one-man party, as this is exactly the type of northern English area they would fully expect to prosper in?

But the good constituents rallied to keep out the far-right in a triumph for decency and humanity.

Reform’s real agenda of protecting the wealthy through the promulgation of prejudice is finally beginning to hit home with many people. Nigel Farage should be very worried.

D Mitchell, Doune, Perthshire

Reform bonus

If anyone was in any doubt before, it has gone. The Greens, an extreme left wing party, has won a resounding victory over common sense.

This party supports drug usage, much higher taxes for the “rich” and limitless immigration. These policies are far too extreme and must create a backlash as homegrown British citizens see their rights eroded even further. How can this promote integration? Reform UK has just had its biggest boost as both Labour and Tory appear sidelined. It is now a fight between Left and Right for “ownership” of the United Kingdom.

Scotland is not exempt as the Scottish Greens are close to their English counterparts. There is a very real danger of a cultural war breaking out, given that immigration has been the catalyst.

Has Donald Trump got it right?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Grubby Greens

Despite the fine by-election win of the Green Party at Gorton and Denton I shall be thinking carefully about voting again for them for the following reasons:

The Party seems unable to distinguish between issues which are clearly Green and others, like banning religious education in schools, assisted dying, and LGBT rights, which are not.

Likewise their dogma against teaching religion in schools has been criticised by some teachers for the lack of moral awareness in schoolchildren.

After a lifetime of fighting for Green issues I don't want to find myself on my deathbed awaiting euthanasia because of some Green Party policy that started with assisted dying for whatever humanitarian reasons, and ended up as euthanasia because the debate was not kept out of the grubby realms of party politics.

Henryk Belda, 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 – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. And please do ensure any names mentioned are correct.