Letters: SNP has its faults, but at least we don't have oligarchs around Holyrood or cash for access

It has been alleged that the way the UK Government handled bids for supplying personal protective equipment (PPE) and other Covid-19 response contracts was biased in favour of those with political access. Some 73 contracts have been identified as possibly corrupt, some 20 per cent of contracts awarded between the beginning of the pandemic and November 2020. How did this happen? Well, safeguards to prevent corruption were suspended. The cost to the taxpayer? This has been estimated at £3.7 billion. That’s a lot of ferries.

I am sure this will be met with charges of "special pleading", that independence supporters would let the SNP off with anything at all, that it is "whataboutery". However, as the saying goes, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" and we should judge governments by their actions in the round, and not just focus on a single one, or only those where they have come up short. In this regard it is interesting that little is heard about free university tuition, no prescription charges, the baby box, free nursery care, the Scottish Child Payment (introduced despite this not being a devolved matter), lowest student loan debt in the UK, water still being publicly owned, to identify only a small sample.

Perhaps though its most significant achievement is no Russian oligarchs around Holyrood, or indeed cash for questions or for access, or awarding contracts worth millions to the pals of government ministers. One might expect Holyrood, and the Scottish Government, to "learn" from Westminster, but there are some lessons it has missed, and that is to our benefit.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

* BOB McDougall may be right, he may be wrong, but one thing is for sure: given that everything in life is relative – fat-thin, tall-short, empty-full and so on – this SNP Government is as close to perfection as possible compared to the Johnson Government. Whether the criteria is ability or attitude, humanitarian, level of achievement, or anything else, compared to the current Conservative Government in London this SNP Government is very good indeed.

George Archibald, West Linton.

PARTY IS JUST A MEANS TO AN END

BOB McDougall seems to think that were Scotland to achieve independence, it would become a one-party state, permanently ruled by the SNP. Unionists often peddle this myth in an attempt to sway voters.

As the only party supporting independence, the SNP is a necessary means to that end. When we achieve independence, the other parties will accept that reality and make their own cases to the electorate.

The only reason the SNP would be in government would be because both its record in government and its electoral manifesto appealed to a sufficient number of the electorate. That’s how democracy works.

John McCallum, Glasgow.

INDYREF2 THE BIGGEST THREAT TO SCOTLAND

NEVER known to shy away from problems, unless it is to do with the ferries crisis, Nicola Sturgeon continues to promote her 2023 independence referendum with vigour. She claims the "biggest threat" is not seizing the chance for independence and is now claiming there is " massive potential" in independence.

The key word here is "potential", which can suggest success but equally can end in failure. On its own it does not signal which of these outcomes is more likely. When you leave this aside and just consider the position of Scotland today in a war-torn, energy-strapped, climate-crisis world the chances of success drop off exponentially, especially given the Scottish Government's current poor track record in health, education, industry, transport, the economy and even its own climate change targets.

In light of all of this the biggest threat to Scotland's potential is actually Indyref2 itself.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

REFLECTIONS ON SILLINESS

ON being told by Aberdeenshire Council to remove pro-separatist signage from his garden, erected without planning consent, Alex Salmond responded by asking "how much money [has been] wasted on this bureaucratic silliness". Many of us ask the same question about the SNP administration under his and his successor's leadership.

Martin Redfern, Melrose.

WHY JOHNSON MUST RESIGN

FORMER Prime Minister David Cameron’s notorious description of his Old Etonian/Bullingdon Club alumni Boris Johnson as a "greased piglet"’ is surely an apt characterisation of the man now occupying 10 Downing Street.

Mr Johnson behaves like an entitled Arthur Daley – minus car coat and cigar – and now looks set to evade culpability, and the conventional resignation required of any MP, and especially a government minister, found guilty of misleading (or in everyday language "lying to") Parliament.

Partygate is his Achilles heel and should signal his fall from what little grace he can muster, and from elected office; ample broadcast evidence exists of him, inside Parliament and beyond, insisting on multiple occasions that, “all guidance was followed completely” (the Met would appear to disagree) and even, at times, bizarrely, that there were no parties.

The threat of Tory MPs submitting sufficient letters to the 1922 Committee during the Russian invasion of Ukraine has receded, gifting the "greased piglet" a convenient get out of jail free card. But now he is insulting the nation’s intelligence, passing the buck and insisting he personally broke no Covid rules, splitting hairs with the anaemic excuse that he had been "repeatedly assured” by others unidentified that there had been full compliance at all times.

But there is a huge, gaping hole in the PM’s slippery, oleaginous alibi; he was there, in the room, attending at least three of the said parties, or "gatherings" as he prefers to describe them. There is photographic evidence of a party in his No 10 flat – his home, not his office – and further corroboration of his birthday party in the Cabinet Room; no question, no doubt, bang to rights.

Prime Minister or no Prime Minister (indeed especially so), war in Ukraine or no war in Ukraine, he must, for once, take responsibility and resign, and, if not, immediately revoke every single fine and criminal record handed out to thousands of ordinary citizens for their breaches of Covid laws.

Mike Wilson, Longniddry.

RAIL PROPOSALS WILL COST TOO MUCH

I WAS interested in the proposals detailed in your article on the Railfuture Scotland list of new railway stations across the Scottish network ("Revealed: Plans to open 51 new railway stations across Scotland", March 27).

As someone who has recently retired after nearly 39 years working in the railway industry I recognised many of the locations mentioned. During part of my Railtrack and Network Rail employment many of these were investigated and the cost of providing an attractive level of service at an affordable price to the taxpayer could not be justified. Whilst climate change and other world energy influences have changed the UK and Scottish governments' strategies on public transport, any network enhancement must be affordable.

The Edinburgh South Suburban Line passenger service would require changes to the signalling on the line to reduce headways, and, more importantly, capacity in the Haymarket to Portobello rail corridor would have to be created.

This capacity issue was also a factor in the proposed Carlisle to Glasgow local service via the West Coast Main Line not being progressed. The provision of new stations at Beattock, Abington, Symington and Law would have had an adverse impact on cross-border passenger and freight services. This particular route is seeing increased freight and logistics use, which makes the introduction of any local service very challenging.

The introduction of one new station on an existing railway will add a minute of three minutes to existing end-to-end journey times. This also has to be factored into existing services at strategic centres such as Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Central.

These are an ambitious set of proposals but the cost to the taxpayer will be high and it may be that light rail (trams) or electric and hydrogen buses offer a better solution.

Kevin A McCarthy, Glasgow.

STRIKING THE WRONG NOTE

IAIN Macwhirter is wrong when he writes that Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra removed Tchaikovsky compositions from its programme because he was Russian ("We cannot allow the conflict in Ukraine to be normalised", March 27). The orchestra will, in fact play three concerts later this year with music by Rachmaninov, Prokofiev and Rimsky-Korsakov, all of whom were Russian.

Orchestra members were uneasy about playing Marche Slav opus 31, and Overture 1812 opus 49 with their Russian nationalism and triumphalism as well as Symphony No2, which is nicknamed "Little Russian". The Overture 1812 with its cannon fire and the former Russian national anthem was considered particularly inappropriate. Considering that one orchestral member's partner is from Ukraine and still has family members trapped there, the orchestra's management agreed to delete these items from the programme for now.

Hugh Brennan, Kilbirnie.