Letters: We must get out of this unequal Union with its contempt for democracy

The people of Northern Ireland have spoken clearly and will not put up with the minority dictating against their wishes. Scotland has been in this position for some time now. How much longer can the Union of unequals continue to exist, ignoring the democratic wishes of the voters?

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

*I HAD to laugh out loud when I read your headline “Stink of corruption growing over SNP Government ferries fiasco” (The Herald, May 16).

There is a bigger stink of corruption connected to the latest Northern Ireland fiasco where what was agreed with the EU has again been reneged on. Nobody can trust a single word from Downing Street.

Margaret Forbes, Blanefield.

SO WHERE WAS OUR INFLUENCE?

MICHAEL Sheridan (Letters, May 16) argues that Scotland should remain represented at Westminster so that “we might go forward with confidence in the Scottish ability to influence decisions” made there.

If this perceived "benefit" is considered pivotal in Mr Sheridan’s objective decision-making then I would respectfully suggest that he take the time to thoroughly assess, or reassess, the influence of Scotland's MPs, who all advocated remaining in the EU, in determining the details of the UK’s most significant international agreement of our times, Brexit.

Mr Sheridan probably has at least a year to read up on all the contributions that apparently influenced that outcome in line with the previously-stated views of those MPs, and those expressed by the electorate in Scotland, and should he discover any actions that would support such confidence I would invite him to write another letter so we can all earnestly consider this "news" in our own objective decision-making before the next independence referendum.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

A CLASH OF PHILOSOPHIES

THE many responses (Letters, May 16) to my own contribution (Letters, May 13) regarding the Labour Party and Scottish independence boil down to a clash of philosophies.

Your correspondents portray the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK as (and I quote) like being on the dole and as parasitism. The question we need to ask is whether we see interdependence and mutual support as a weakness or as a strength. Should the better-off contribute to the well-being of the less well-off? Does it create a better society if we love our neighbour – or should we walk by on the other side? Labour believes that we achieve more by our common endeavour than we do alone.

In contrast, the idea that a relationship based on sharing resources and risks is demeaning and debilitating – that we should all stand on our own two feet – belongs to right-wing Tories like Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher. And to nationalists.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

US TRIP IS A SMOKESCREEN

YET again we note that Nicola Sturgeon is exceeding her authority as First Minister of the devolved Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Acts under which the Scottish Executive, now referred to as Government, was inaugurated by Westminster make no provision for Holyrood's involvement in foreign affairs. Such matters are reserved to the UK Government. Why therefore is Ms Sturgeon swanning about in the United States ("Sturgeon calls for ‘sustainable approach to energy security’", The Herald, May 16) on what can only be described as non-Holyrood matters?

It is obvious to most people that the SNP administration's handling of devolved matters such as education, health, public transport – including west coast and Clyde ferries – policing, environment and much more have proved less than acceptable. The granting of further powers would merely exasperate this situation.

Surely it is obvious that Ms Sturgeon's attempts to interfere in non-devolved matters are merely a smokescreen to divert the electorate's attention away from the gross inadequacies of the SNP minority administration.

Robert IG Scott, Ceres, Fife.

DELUSION AND WISHFUL THINKING

I FEAR delusion has overtaken common sense in the nationalist ranks in Scotland. The most recent Survation poll indicated a mere 29 per cent want a referendum next year. The Times’ poll was even worse reading for the SNP. It showed less than 24% wanting a referendum next year and less than 31% wanting one in the next five years. They could hardly be more clear.

And yet, astonishingly, the SNP’s reaction to the local election results were that they show support for a second referendum and the case was cast iron. Has nationalist delusion and wishful thinking entirely taken over from reality? Do they believe the naked emperor is fully clothed? It would certainly appear so.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

DON'T COMPLAIN IF YOU DON'T VOTE

ANDY Maciver admits that he did not vote in the local elections earlier this month ("Highlands shows how local politics should work", The Herald, May 13). That is his right, though he might have been better spoiling his ballot paper if he really could not bring himself to rank even one candidate above another; he did not of course have to opt for one in particular because of the single transferable vote system.

However, having opted not to express a preference of any kind, I do hope Mr Maciver will not have the cheek to complain about the services offered by his local council, as he chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to influence them.

And if he did not vote because all the candidates in his ward were members of political parties, why did he not stand himself as an Independent?

Councillor Jane Ann Liston (Liberal Democrats), St Andrews.

KEEP POLITICS OUT OF THE NHS

PREDICTABLY, Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, May 13) has another slap at the SNP. Humza Yousef, again, is in the dock.

Within the last week, I had the misfortune (due to my health) to land in A&E twice in 48 hours; first in Glasgow then in London. In both hospitals, I had the great fortune to receive outstanding medical care and great compassion throughout both visits.

As it happened, the London hospital's waiting times far exceeded those of Glasgow. This is not the point of my letter, however. Each visit allowed me to witness the incredible hard work of over-stretched staff at all levels. No mention of unionism or nationalism from my perspective. No thought that their efforts continue to be so marginalised by such as Dr Edwards, reduced to political point-scoring.

How disheartening it must be to so many NHS staff to feel as pawns in a political name-calling exercise. I express my deepest gratitude to both hospitals.They continue to rise above the tawdry politicisation of people’s lives.

Rod O’Donnell, Milngavie.

INCREASE TAXES ON MIDDLE EARNERS

MALCOLM Allan (Letters, May 14) made a very good point. Apart from just the Europa League final in Seville, it appears that lots of games involving travel outside the UK attract a good number of supporters. It is obvious that these supporters have money to spare to attend so many games.

Also, we see a large number of expensive vehicles as well a large extensions to expensive houses where the cost of purchase of these houses has increased recently.

There has, rightly, been a suggestion that people with immense incomes be asked to pay more tax, although many invest their money abroad. However, these football supporters and other so-called "middle earners" could comfortably pay more tax to help those on low income. After all, it is not the amount of tax which should be looked at but the net income where the gap between the lowest and the highest is unacceptably large.

Ian Turner, Bearsden.

Read more: Scotland has been sickened by voting Labour, getting Tory