Scotsman Letters: Why didn't Opposition look into Murrell plea delay?

For me this is the only one that matters, because had the case been concluded before the 7 May election the result would have been completely different.

But my 14th point would ask why no opposition leader spelled out at the time that the “political advantage” the SNP got by receiving details of the charges in February would be to delay final events of the case until after the election.

If they had done so we'd probably have a different government in Scotland today. What were they afraid of? Winning the election?

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Mastermind

I've read many a commentator state that Peter Murrell was not exactly a master criminal. I disagree. He managed to steal over a very long period, successfully employing devious tactics to hide his spoils from his boss and his party colleagues. Who would ever have thought of looking around the side of his mother’s house for a motorhome?

Of course, he got caught but only after a thorough £2 million police investigation. Given that he has the funds to fulfil his promise to pay everything back, including a share of at least two homes, he has also masterminded the use of public funds to pay for his legal aid.

Given his employer's inability to notice (or remember) the obvious, and his party's insistence that all accounts were in good health, I think he was just unlucky. If, as Angela Constance insists, the SNP's accounting procedures are as sound as any then we should perhaps have an enquiry look into the funding of all parties. You never know where master criminals may be lurking.

Ken Currie, Edinburgh

Hidden truth

On Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg (14 June), one of the major themes was defence. Al Carns, the former Armed Forces Minister, who quit on 11 June, like Defece Minister John Healey, was on the studio political pundits’ panel.

The BBC's interest is in the Makerfield by election only, which they view through the prism of the possibility that the King over the water, Andy Burnham, may flip flop his way to stealing the throne.

As Rachel Amery (Scotland On Sunday, 14 June), reminded us, there are two highly significant Scottish by elections in Aberdeen South and Arbroath and Broughty Ferry.

Referring to the prospect of a Burnham challenge to Sir Keir Starmer, Carns said what was needed was a major policy debate with big ideas, otherwise a Reform government will be returned in 2029. While Kuenssberg responded to that, Mr Carns added that social division will lead to national division, with Scotland independent on a big swing by 2031.

This is the BBC's elephant in the room so Laura Kuenssberg blatantly ignored this, though he repeated it.

This is all the more surprising given we are being subjected daily, to a BBC TV News insert in which Clive Myrie assures us the BBC is beavering away 24/7 to ensure they give us the truth.

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife

Missed chance

Allan Sutherland (Letters,15 June) says Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves were on the point of resigning until John Healey decided to go. A missed opportunity if ever there was one. The puzzled Reeves I can live with, but I would have been prepared to lose her if the possessed Miliband went too.

Stephen Callanann, Guildford, Surrey

Worthy ban

So the Prime Minister has just announced there will be a social media ban for under-16s because it can be a negative thing for them and is to protect them from bad influences... I think he should have gone further… let’s say octogenarians.

Well, there is one we all know who wants to run the world order through social media that must be a bad negative influence, don't you think?

J Moore, Glasgow

Time for debate

It is revealing that in response to my earlier letter, David Millar (Letters, 12 June), Jill Stephenson and Alan Phillips (13 June) all conveniently sidestepped the question of how to remedy broken Britain. In fact, rather ironically, Mr Millar effectively separated Scotland from the “Union” in blaming the SNP for “ALL” of the woes Scots are currently experiencing.

It seems for some, when considering the possible merits of living in the UK, it must be comforting that a simple change of government at Holyrood, and the adoption of the same failed policies pursued by Westminster, would magically produce a vibrant and sustainably growing economy where the basic welfare of many citizens would no longer be threatened. In addition, presumably our woeful defence cover would instantly be transformed so as to actually protect the people of these islands (instead of sustaining military posture on the world stage, far beyond Europe, at great expense, including our safety and security).

Perversely these same people appear more concerned with the internal finances of the SNP rather than the hundreds of billions of pounds of public money wasted through the gross mismanagement of UK government procurement and infrastructure projects (Scotland’s compulsory share of which makes the much-quoted spending on the dual-fuel ferries, although not inconsiderable, almost pale into insignificance).

Others may conclude that the time is long overdue to have a serious debate about the constitutional arrangements governing the nations of these islands, as maintaining the status quo is no longer a viable option to independence or some form of federalism.

Decades of two-party politics within an archaic political structure and undemocratic voting system have failed.

Most people now realise Britain needs fundamental change, with independence for the four nations or proto-fascism the only current alternatives.

Those who see a different constitutional/governmental future, such as federalism, need to start speaking up or trust that independence will provide the opportunity for their voices to be heard.

Those whose only contributions to this debate are more criticisms of the SNP are betraying future generations.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Heritage Lost

Am I alone in feeling unease at the current policy of the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland in selling off church buildings?

While in law the General Trustees are the owners of these buildings, are they taking due cognisance of their greater responsibilities as custodians? Many of these buildings are irreplaceable cultural assets; prominent landmarks which define and give identity to their locale, as the Eiffel Tower epitomises Paris.

Many are of significant architectural as well as historical interest, and contain items including murals, memorials and stained glass windows. Through the disposal process these buildings and their fixtures pass into private or corporate ownership and in the majority of instances the current right of access is lost.

These buildings and their fixtures exist as a result of the faith, generosity and creativity of local congregations who have commissioned and endowed them. Many of these gifts are memorials to individuals who gave service to the Church, whose personal histories are critical to the community and are interwoven with the fabric. Certain standards have prevailed to ensure they are of suitable quality. As a result many key figures from Scotland's artistic community are represented.

By the decisions of the General Trustees, Scotland, as a nation, runs the risk of losing access to a significant part of its cultural heritage. That should concern us. It has a potential knock-on, also, for our tourism industry, reducing the offer significantly.

The Scriptures painted the money lenders in the temple, and the Philistines, as contra to the faith. Would others agree they may not only be back but being actively promoted through this ludicrous scheme that will ultimately leave us all very much the poorer, whatever short term filling of the coffers at 121 George Street, Edinburgh?

Robin H Rodger, Perth

Power play

Reader Hugh Pennington (“Safe power”, Letters, 11 June) remarks that I didn’t show many alternative ways of making electricity, so here are a few.

1) Mechanical: Electrical (turbines or generators); Hydro (rivers, dams); Wind (onshore/offshore); Tides and waves; Geothermal steam; Pumped‑storage hydro (water pumped uphill then released).

2) Heat → Steam → Turbines; Fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil); Biomass / waste burning; Concentrated solar power (CSP).

3) Direct Solar → Electrical; Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels.

4) Chemical → Electrical; Batteries; Fuel cells (eg hydrogen).

5) Direct Thermal → Electrical (no turbines); Thermoelectric generators; Thermionic converters (specialised/experimental).

6) Pressure / Fluid‑gradient Methods; Osmotic power (freshwater meeting seawater).

7) Mechanical (Non‑turbine); Piezoelectric devices (pressure/vibration on crystals).

8) Biological / Novel; Microbial fuel cells (bacteria generating electricity).

9) Fusion, nuclear, but no dangerous wastes.

10) Nikolai Tesla-style; exploiting the earth/sky differential potential, eg lightning.

Tim Flinn, Morningside, 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.