Letters: The filthy state of Glasgow makes me despair of the SNP

It's probably unnecessary to list the many things that are wrong with Glasgow – we all know what they are. And it's true that the city council has a difficult job on its hands, being chronically short of money and having inherited a legacy of years of neglect and under-investment from previous Labour administrations. But there is no evidence that the current SNP-led council is making any serious effort to address the city's difficulties. How can it when its leader won't even admit there is a problem?

Never mind trying to tart up the city for the benefit of COP26 visitors, how about making it fit for those of us who live in it?

As a Glaswegian born and bred, I feel so disenchanted with this SNP dereliction of duty that I am reviewing my previous support for the party – at council level and indeed at national level.

Carole Jesmont, Glasgow.

DEPRESSING DEGRADATION

I HAVE lived in Glasgow for 30 years now and have never seen it looking more squalid and litter-strewn. Recent trips to such different places as St Andrews and Dublin, where the streets are clean and decorated with beautiful floral displays, have highlighted my deep sadness and dismay at the state of Glasgow. Every street is covered in litter and roadsides show the accreted debris of possibly years of neglect. Approach roads to the city, motorway verges, even country lanes have mile after mile of decaying filth alongside them. Who knows when any attempt to clean them was last made?

I had hoped that the staging of COP 26 here soon would prompt a clear-up but my hopes are fading. As it is I am ashamed to think that anyone will see the depressing degradation of a once-proud city, let alone those concerned with the state of our planet.

Clare Stillman, Glasgow.

CHALLENGE TO THE MAJORITY

I AM Glasgow-born and bred and very proud of my city in so many ways, but there are two notable exceptions. One is sectarianism, which if anything seems to get worse rather than diminish with the passage of time. Realistically there is nothing I can do to “ solve” that source of embarrassment, and I fear it will persist as long as we have feeble-minded members in our community who are immune to education. The second is how dirty our streets are, and our apparent acceptance of litter. When I visit Glasgow I am struck by how much dirtier my city is compared to everywhere else in Scotland and beyond. Why do we not all see that problem and do something about it?

COP26 presents us with a real opportunity. We all need to be environmentally aware and concerned, so why not start with something as simple as keeping our streets free of litter? We will always have the selfish element who will not listen, but surely they are a small minority? If the majority simply take positive action not to litter, and pick up and bin even a small amount, it would make a real and positive difference, and set an example. Something more to be proud of rather than ashamed.

I am not suggesting that the offenders should be called out or named and shamed, because that is potentially dangerous. Simply suggesting that the majority accept the challenge and act responsibly. I also think that council resources for street cleaning could be more efficiently managed.

Gerry McCann, Greenlaw, Berwickshire.

MORE TO THE UNION THAN POLITICS

DAVE Biggart (Letters, September 6) has completely misunderstood what it is to be an advocate of the UK. He asks unionists to sit back and examine what is happening with their beloved Westminster Conservative Government. Many of those who voted for and would vote again for the Union over separation are not supporters of a Tory government or a fan of Boris Johnson.

Governments come and go. At some point Boris Johnson will no longer be PM and at some point there may be a strong opposition who get into power. Separation would be forever and there is more to our Union that politics. There is a feeling of British identity, a shared heritage, a sense of being together with all those who live on this island. Governments have nothing to do with that and that is what nationalists fail to understand.

You may see the UK Government as the enemy. I see those who live south of Berwick as my friends.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

GOOD THAT WE HAVE CHOICES

IF Catriona C Clark is asking “Why should Scotland always have to stump up to compensate for Tory austerity?” hasn’t she really missed the entire point of devolution?

If Scotland wants to live up to its self-satisfied image of being a more caring and humane society than elsewhere in the UK (as those smug adverts saying “in Scotland we look after each other” tell us) surely we should all be glad to pay a bit extra and to adjust spending priorities accordingly?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

NO PROSPECTUS FOR SCOTLAND

PROFESSOR Mark Blyth – who lives in the safety of the United States – is one of Nicola Sturgeon’s economic advisers. He has publicly criticised the SNP’s economic plans for a separate Scotland as being, well, not plans at all. There is, he says, "a complete lack of specificity", and it would take decades to restabilise the Scottish economy after any vote for secession ("FM adviser warns independence would bring 20 years of economic upheaval", The Herald, September 7). Welcome to our world, Prof Blyth. It is a consistent pro-Union criticism that the SNP has no economic or financial prospectus for a separate Scotland.

The SNP's main objective is to be like a Scandinavian country. Norway used to be the example of choice, but it has been replaced by Denmark. "Why wouldn’t we be a successful small country like Denmark?" blares SNP propaganda. Prof Blyth ridicules this: "No, you wouldn’t be Denmark. Denmark took 600 years to become Denmark." This is the best answer I have seen to that SNP fake news question.

Prof Blyth is aware of the bonds of 300 years of union, especially compared with the 45 years of UK EU membership. His diagnosis is that leaving the UK risks being "Brexit times 10". This is all a bit embarrassing for the SNP, but their defenders point out that Professor Blyth has said that he favours Scottish secession. As I said, he lives in the safety of the US. He would not suffer the shambles that would follow Scotland leaving the Union.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

* YET again we have a Government adviser being honest about the impact of independence on the financial situation in the country which will inevitably impact on the population as a whole.

The SNP response is that we will rejoin the European Union, avoiding stating how the upheaval will be addressed and what the impact would be. It also fails to address the impact of trade with the rest of the UK when bound by EU market rules, trade which is 10 times greater than that with the EU before Brexit.

These issues must be addressed realistically and evaluated by a panel of independent experts before a referendum is held.

We cannot be held to ransom by a First Minister who will claim the glory of achieving independence and then swan off to an international job where she can avoid the impact on the country.

Bill Eadie, Giffnock.

BREXIT THRESHOLD WAS INAPPROPRIATE

ROBIN Johnston (Letters, September 7) dismisses a 50% vote in an independence referendum because there is no turning back from the result, and declares that 60% is therefore more appropriate. He will surely then agree that the simple 50% vote in the June 2016 referendum to leave the EU, from which there is also no turning back, was equally inappropriate.

James Gracie, Sanquhar.

THE WALFORD GAP

RE the article by Mark Smith ("A union that even nationalists will have to learn to live with", The Herald, September 6): if Scotland gains its independence will I HAVE to watch EastEnders?

Margaret Miller, Gartmore.

Read more: Why should Scotland always have to stump up to compensate for Tory austerity?