DENIS Bruce and other thoughtful contributors are rightly concerned about the “certification by public outcry” that has occurred with the 2020 SQA awards to candidates (Letters, August 14). Likewise Douglas Marr has reservations about the currency of such results, based as they are on teachers’ estimates of candidate performance ("Is it time to rethink Scots exam system from ground up?", The Herald, August 14). At the same time many teachers have reservations about the outcome forced on John Swinney by opposition parties, as it has rewarded not only pupils who may or may not have achieved these grades but also teachers whose assessment of their candidates' likely outcome can perhaps be described as "optimistic". Other teachers who took a more realistic view of their candidates, and their candidates themselves, have been, relatively speaking, penalised. As one said to me, "honest teachers will have to face the wrath of candidates and parents because of this".

It will be interesting to see how events unfold elsewhere, and in England particularly. There, awarding bodies applied similar processes to moderate estimates submitted by teachers that were "ridiculously inflated". Gavin Williamson has already reacted to mollify criticism but may only have succeeded in muddying the waters. Yet he will undoubtedly remain in post, not due to superior processes applied by the English awarding bodies (they were basically the same as SQA used), not by virtue of superior competence or greater integrity (he was appointed by Boris Johnson, after all) but by by dint of the Tories’ overall majority of 80 (on a vote share of 43 per cent).

The SNP is a minority administration despite achieving 46 per cent of the vote in 2016. The difference is due to the peculiarities of the two electoral systems, the one guaranteed to produce an overall majority in Westminster on as little as 35 per cent of the votes, the other designed to prevent an overall majority under any but the most unpredictable circumstances. The result has been shameless opportunism by the Unionist parties in proposing a vote of no confidence in John Swinney, when he did what any education secretary should do in protecting the value of the qualifications awarded to candidates, as all candidates suffer when their awards are devalued. Had the SQA awarded a 90% pass rate based on teachers’ inflated estimates, he would have been castigated by these same parties. Tory MSP Jamie Greene even called for the resignation of Fiona Robertson for, effectively, not only following the instructions of her employer, the Education Secretary, but also of protecting the value of SQA’s qualifications as she was bound to do in her contract of employment. This smacks of opposition for opposition’s sake; but for Unionists, the Union comes before everything.

Larry Cheyne, Bishopbriggs.

I FEEL Rebecca McQuillan somewhat misses the point over what the public perceive of both the pandemic, and the reaction to it of their leaders ("Sturgeon can thank bumbling Boris for her popularity rating", The Herald, August 14). I suspect most people see Scotland as suffering heavy coronavirus mortality as a consequence of UK “lockstep”, and that having diverged from that would assess us as doing better. Nicola Sturgeon stands up daily to answer questions, and is regarded as trustworthy all over the UK in a way that Boris Johnson is not.

You don’t require weasel words like “saintly” to describe competence. Impartial news and journalism is important. The media that operates in Scotland, not least the BBC, have allowed themselves to be exploited as a conduit for attacks on the governing party in a way that does not happen in England. The public aren’t daft; they can see this bias in the different emphasis placed, for example, on the education “shambles” on both sides of the Border. You can see it on any health issue, where the BBC in Scotland immediately escalates every story to a government/ministerial responsibility. That never happens in England, in spite of repeated serious health scandals over decades.

Why does this matter? It seems that repeated, and context-free, SNP-bad stories have inured many in the public into regarding much of the news as Unionist “disinformation”, and increasingly easy to ignore. An interesting project for universities to evaluate. The latest wheeze is to badge every spending commitment to Scotland with a Union flag as if Scots did not pay taxes. Will it give Scotland a fair per capita share of UK spending, for example, in defence spending and procurement? And the BBC, which will be expected to promote this stunt, will it spend in Scotland the same per capita share of its licence fee, as England?

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

MY support for independence rests on the simple fact that it would allow the people of Scotland to elect the Government of their choice rather than having one chosen by voters south of the border. It has nothing to do with the competence or otherwise of any political parties or individual politicians but has everything to do with my perception of the competence of the Scottish nation. Against this, your regular anti-independence correspondents, including Dr Gerald Edwards and James Martin (Letters, August 14) can offer nothing better than their view that Nicola Sturgeon may be brilliant but John Swinney is useless. How does that in any way relate to the democratic deficit which underpins the case for independence?

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

CONGRATULATIONS to your correspondent James Martin, for condensing into one short paragraph the most brilliant piece of doublespeak that I've ever read in your Letters Pages. He refuses to comment on the suitability of the Education Secretary for the position while at the same time labelling Mr Swinney incapable of holding any government post.

Gordon Evans, Burnside.

GERALD Edwards (Letters, August 14) asks the question "Is Scotland really a democracy any more?" As the no-confidence vote against John Swinney failed because it wasn't backed by the majority of MSPs, then clearly the answer is that Scotland is a democracy. The political make-up of the Scottish Parliament may not meet with Dr Edwards's approval, but he and all of Scotland's voters will be able to have their say next May and we will get the government we elect, unlike the situation at Westminster where we get not only the government England elects, but an unelected second chamber, where the already excessive numbers are due to be swollen still more by a Dame who is currently ensconced in Holyrood as a Tory MSP. Where's the democracy in that?

Dr Edwards need have no fear that "independence will be foisted upon us". Scotland will regain her independence when Scotland's voters make that choice, and as there has been a "significant and material change of circumstance" since 2014 and as opinion polls increasingly indicate that voters want to make that choice, there should be no obstacles put in Scotland's way to prevent the choice being made. That would be a real travesty of democracy.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

A NEW poll shows that four in 10 Scots, including a majority of SNP voters, do not want English tourists to be admitted to Scotland ("Nearly half of Scots do not want unrestricted visitors from England to be allowed", The Herald, August 14). I can only assume that these substantial numbers of people are not themselves involved in the tourist industry, and that they do not have family members, neighbours or friends who are so involved. The tourist industry has been very hard hit by the coronavirus, and consists of far more than B&Bs and attractions of various kinds. Shops, pubs, bars, restaurants and taxis, and more, all benefit greatly from tourists.

I can only assume that those who would bar from Scotland English people – who normally come here in their droves – have some kind of atavistic grudge and no concern for their fellow Scots who depend on tourists of all kinds for a livelihood. The virus has given them an excuse to air a prejudice that has become all too evident in recent years.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

CATRIONA Stewart gives the Tory Party a good kicking over the migrant "invasion" (Migrant ‘invasion’ is language of war from a Tory party losing on all fronts", The Herald, August 14). Fair enough, that's her right, but her remedy is simplistic and naive.

"The solution," she writes, "is to make it easier for people to claim asylum, working with our EU neighbours."

She overlooks the fact that the same asylum seekers are already in EU neighbouring territory and want out for sanctuary and a better life in the UK. She should be asking why Britain is superior, even under a Tory Government.

James Miller, Glasgow G12.

THE UK Government is fully justified in displaying the Union flag on projects in Scotland which it has funded, thereby calling time on an EU propaganda racket of labelling projects as "Funded by the EU" ,which in fact are funded from the £13 billion annual payment (after rebate) into EU coffers by the British Government courtesy of the British taxpayer.

Morag Black, Houston.

I HAVE great sympathy for the locals in Durness and the problems with “ dirty campers” (“‘Our little village is being swamped’: Angry locals hit out at swarm of dirty campers in Highlands”, The Herald, August 10) but I am afraid that an appeal to Ms Sturgeon and the Scottish Government will fall on deaf ears.

Just as we in Scotland may well feel that the Westminster Government cares little about north of the Border, so residents of Durness and all areas north of Perth probably feel that the Scottish Government cares only for the Central Belt, maybe because that is where the votes are.

I do wonder which parts of the country the “dirty campers” come from and from what age group they represent.

I am not from the central belt, but from a small coastal Ayrshire village also plagued by the “dirty campers” and have great sympathy for those living in the north.

This lack of interest in parts out with the Central Belt is not exclusive to the SNP but also applies to the other main parties, sad to say.

Malcolm Rankin, Seamill.