Letters: Let's be proud we subject our leaders to full public scrutiny

In the midst of all the "did she, didn't she's?", "did he, didn't he's" and political grandstanding aimed at the May election, could we not pause for a moment and be proud that we have such an open and vigorous system holding our politicians and civil servants to account?

We are a carnaptious lot. Political rows are part and parcel of life in Scotland. Others will judge who lied, who didn't, who was responsible for what. But, meanwhile, are we not showing the world that we are a fully democratic, functioning country?

And, yes, I do think we could do even better if we were independent.

Alasdair MacDermott, Appin.

* ANYBODY hear on BBC Scotland news this morning about the UK Government breaking an international treaty with the EU? Me neither. Remember when Boris Johnson told an incredulous group of Northern Irish business people that there would be no checks on goods going from the UK to Northern Ireland after Brexit? He went as far as to say they should contact him directly if they were asked for paperwork.

You can see this on YouTube. Now the grace period on tougher checks being introduced between UK and Northern Ireland is being extended for six months without EU agreement because of the present border chaos.

Contrast this with Nicola Sturgeon answering questions openly to the Scottish electorate for eight hours yesterday via a committee convened by the Scottish Parliament.

The difference between the standards to which the two governments are held and then reported to the public is stark.

Susan Grant, Tain.

OUR DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

I, LIKE many others I suspect, viewed proceedings at Holyrood when the First Minister was delivering her “evidence”, with embarrassment and anger ("Sturgeon: Apologise for your ‘inappropriate conduct’ Alex", The Herald, March 4). This episode has highlighted the democratic deficit faced by the Scottish people in holding the Executive to account.

Nicola Sturgeon, famed for her grasp of the facts and figures, “forgot” about her meeting with Geoff Aberdein just four days before she met Alex Salmond at her home but commented that she recalled at that meeting that “a harassment-type issue had arisen”. If she had an inclination that Mr Salmond might be about to resign from the SNP, then this must have been raised with her. She hid behind “I was not party to that meeting” or “to the best of my knowledge” or “I do not want to tell the committee how to do its job”.

She had committee convener Linda Fabiani to helpfully interrupt or to close down the likes of Margaret Mitchell and Jackie Baillie whenever the questioning seemed to make the First Minister uncomfortable. Combine this with the shocking display of arrogance the day before from the Lord Advocate, who took pleasure in threatening the force of law against MSPs, reminding them, that unlike their counterparts in Westminster, they do not have “privilege” against prosecution for what they say in the Chamber.

The First Minister has overseen a breakdown in HR policy costing the taxpayer enormous amounts of money having ignored her own legal advice. She has overseen a spineless John Swinney finally releasing legal advice to save his own skin. But fundamentally she has failed the women who came forward to bravely state their case.

In the whole of this disgraceful episode, not one single individual in government, the Civil Service or the Crown Office has paid any price whatsoever. It is the complainants and the public who have paid the price. Consequently, come the election in May and for the sake of honest and democratic oversight of the Executive, this deceitful, discredited and dishonest Government must not be granted a working majority.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh.

STURGEON SHOWS SHE'S FALLIBLE

IN true SNP style, Nicola Sturgeon has already put yesterday's "tour de force" behind her as a job well done. Not so. In giving evidence she has shown just how fallible she can be. Not the qualities needed for strong leadership especially if negotiating for constitutional changes. Just how many mistakes can you make before the game is over?

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

SNIPING FROM THE NASTY PARTY

WATCHING the concerted baiting of the First Minister, particularly by two Conservative MSPs, followed by comments on the day’s proceedings from their cynical leader, I was reminded of the words of the 17th century, Samuel Butler, who complained of people who "Compound for sins they are inclin’d to/ By damning those they have no mind to".

Truly nothing changes. What else could be expected from what remains the "nasty party"?

Ian MacLeod, Brodick.

CAN WE BELIEVE THE FIRST MINISTER?

DURING his questioning of Nicola Sturgeon in front of the Scottish Committee of Inquiry Murdo Fraser said something which every Scot must seriously reflect on. He commented that Ms Sturgeon had said some harsh things about Alex Salmond and pointed out to her that she had been an ally and political friend of Mr Salmond for 30 years, reminding her that all through that period she had told the Scottish people that they could trust Mr Salmond, that he was a man of integrity and honour, not least when he was leading the party in the 2014 independence referendum. He then put it to her that "you are now telling us that we should not believe a word he says".

The question in my mind is whether the Scottish people can now believe a word Ms Sturgeon says.

Morag Black, Houston.

COMMITTEE WAS BADLY ORGANISED

I WATCHED the evidence given by Nicola Sturgeon and was frustrated by the lack of organisation of the inquiry, with the same questions being raised again and again by various members of the committee.

The convener should have sorted out with her members who was asking what and it would have reduced the session by half.

Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen.

HOW LOW WE HAVE SUNK

FOR football fans, the normal retort after a dreich, stalemated, horrible game is to claim that the teams were "two bad lots". That expresses my feelings exactly about the latest battles in the Salmond-Sturgeon war. That the electorate could consider either of the two opponents, or their party, fit and worthy to run Scotland’s affairs is mind-blowing.

It is another indication of how divided and low Scotland has sunk after more than a decade of nationalist administrations. Others must look on with incredulity.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

*STAYING in England I do not have a great knowledge of Scottish politics, but after watching Nicola Sturgeon's questioning today at the Scottish Parliament I now know that Jackie Baillie and Margaret Mitchell are twins.

Craig Kilpatrick, Appleby in Westmorland, Cumbria.

NOW RELEASE OECD REPORT

IN her evidence to the parliamentary inquiry on Wednesday, Nicola Sturgeon claimed that the SNP Government had "no intention" of not releasing information to the committee. Does that apply to all documents which should be in the public domain? Given her claims of transparency, Scots are entitled to ask why the OECD report on educational standards is being delayed until after the May election.

According to Dr Keir Bloomer, the architect of Curriculum for Excellence, there is "no reason" why the report cannot be published and "the sooner the better". He added: " The only reason the Government can possibly have for seeking to maintain secrecy over this review is that it's trying to get the OECD to alter what it says, and that to my mind is completely insupportable."

If the electorate are to believe Ms Sturgeon's claims of transparency it is vital that this report is published now – well before the May election – so voters can scrutinise the actual performance of Scottish education in recent years. Perhaps a clue that the report is not being published is that the last OECD report showed a lamentable decline in Scottish educational performance. Has this continued? Electors have a right to know.

William Loneskie, Lauder.

Read more: Independence would mean saying goodbye to the devolution freebies