Letters: The Scottish Government has nowhere to hide when it comes to the scandal of drugs deaths

Mr Yousaf says "more progressive drug laws would be a priority for an SNP government” under independence. He should tell us the details, now.

UK drug laws of course are reserved to Westminster. Scotland having different laws in this space makes no sense, we need to work across the UK and cross-party on the tragedy of Scotland's drug deaths that sit fair and square at the feet of the SNP, fact.

Scotland and England share the same laws and we must look elsewhere to find the reason for the SNP’s drug shame. Holyrood has myriad powers that could reverse the trend.

Scotland has around 60,000 people with a drug problem, a higher proportion of the population than any European country; our fatal drug overdose rate is the highest across the Continent. The SNP loves comparisons with other countries, so here is one: Slovakia, a country the same size as Scotland, with only 19 drug deaths (2017 figures).

Other European comparisons such as the Netherlands and Sweden (not just Portugal that is cited by many) have adopted different (and better) responses to their respective drug problems but they share a low level of problematic drug use and drug misuse deaths because they address poverty, poor housing, marginalised communities who have been forgotten and so much more.

They have much lower rates of poverty than Scotland – opportunity is spread more evenly. It is wider government policies that have the greatest effect on a country’s drug problem. Their governments of course do not obsess about separation, they get on with the real issues in their societies. The SNP should do the same within the UK.

Meanwhile the main UK drugs law is now over 50 years old and redundant, but it is not the drug policy per se that decides the rate of problem drug use.

I am afraid there is nowhere for the nationalists to run and hide from these facts. No wonder they are hoping for a pie in the sky one-issue General Election, avoiding scrutiny of their drug strategies and other failures in Scotland’s health system..
Douglas McBean, Edinburgh

The insanity of nuclear weapons

UK Defence Minister Alec Shelbrooke's remarks on his visit to Faslane in which he criticised the First Minister's commitment to getting rid of Trident were somewhat naive ("Minister defends nuclear ‘ambiguity’", The Herald, October 12).

Whilst talking about Putin's threat to use tactical or "theatre" nuclear weapons in Ukraine, he blithely seems to think that having Trident, armed with highly accurate warheads (the ability to hit a target 7,500 miles away within a CEP – circular error probability – of 250ft) which are strategic nuclear war fighting weapons (each missile capable of 64 Hiroshimas and every Trident sub armed with eight missiles) is some kind of "counterbalance" and that we could "strike back equally".

In actual fact, we and other signatories to the nonproliferation treaty have consistently violated Article VI which commits us, along with other existing nuclear weapons states, to reducing vertical proliferation (adding to our own arsenals) as well as horizontal proliferation (new states getting nuclear capability).

Any use of nuclear weapons is insane – radiation knows no frontiers, and Russia's proximity to Ukraine means that both it and Belarus would get some of the fallout should Putin risk it.

Trident doesn't need to be based in Scotland. It can go to Portsmouth or Plymouth or even one of the new Scandinavian members of Nato. It's serviced in King's Bay, Georgia, USA, so it could even be based there for a transitional period. Then Scotland could sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, along with 91 other countries.
Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Chair, British CND 1990-93, Edinburgh

Stand up for small businesses

THE small Scottish business where I work places an advert on a leading recruitment website, Indeed, for people to work at its premises near Edinburgh. This little business has to pay 20% VAT on its turnover, while the recruitment platform pays none. (It is officially based in the Irish Republic.)

Given that the business and its potential employees are all resident in Scotland, the service provided by the recruitment platform is intimately connected with this country. In the circumstances, it is in my view no better than a scam to allow the website to escape liability to pay VAT on the transaction to the UK Government.

This is just one example of the wider phenomenon of small businesses being harshly taxed, while vast internet-based corporations pay next to nothing.

It would be nice if there were some politicians who actually stood up for small businesses, not just because they are an essential part of the economy, but also because they deserve a fair deal.
Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife

Service in a while

EVERY organisation that you call is happy to give your their company spiel, tell you that they are recording the call in order to improve their service and blah, blah, blah. You then wade through a quagmire of useless options and wait for an eternity to be put through to an operator while being told all the time that they are "experiencing an extremely high level of calls". Estimated time to speak to SSE – 60 minutes; an email address on their correspondence is no longer in operation. ScotRail – cannot access anyone. Stirling Council, press an option for roads and get through to someone who knows nothing about them. The good thing, apparently, is that all calls are recorded!

We should get better service but, unfortunately we expect less.
Steve Barnet, Gargunnock

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.