Time to call a halt to damage caused by Sturgeon's flawed campaign

The Supreme Court judgement has removed most of the separatists' ammunition. It is high time to call a halt to this extremely damaging period in Scotland's constitutional history and start to tackle pressing domestic issues.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

JACK'S ROLE IS ILLOGICAL

BEFORE, during and I suspect long after the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, which enables a minority Government (the Conservatives won 43.6% of the popular vote in 2019) in Westminster to deny a slender but growing majority of people in Scotland who delivered a clear electoral mandate to seek Scottish independence through the Scottish Parliament, the Secretary of State for Scotland finds himself in a seriously conflicted situation as a leading figure in the Better Together movement and the Scottish talisman for the maintenance of the status quo.

Sitting next to his boss during Prime Minister’s Questions in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling and subsequently making a victory speech in the House of Commons, the smug and supercilious Mr Jack made it perfectly clear which side of the great constitutional debate he stands on.

But, given the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland “is the UK Government Cabinet Minister representing Scotland” and is to "act as the custodian of the Scottish devolution settlement [and] represent Scottish interests within the UK Government", Mr Jack’s position should be untenable in that his clear and unambiguous support for the Union flies directly in the face of a growing majority of his pan-Scottish bailiwick.

Recent opinion polls have revealed a steady, and growing, popular support for independence, together with an even greater percentage of voters north of the Border open to the independence question being asked once again, and I would expect the pro-independence camp to receive a significant boost, as we Scots typically cannot abide a playground bully or a blowhard.

The UK Government’s website confirms Mr Jack’s constitutional responsibilities as "representing Scottish interests within the UK Government". Surely, then, his position in representing only a clear minority of the people of Scotland renders his position illogical and anti-democratic.

The only problem with that is that Mr Jack is so low-key as to be all but invisible and one wonders how many people outside the inner sanctum of the Scotland Office would notice?

Mike Wilson, Longniddry.

SOLVE NHS BEFORE TACKLING NCS

I SEE that the NHS underfunding in Scotland is so bad that senior health personnel have been discussing further NHS privatisation. At the same time, independent analysis has revealed that the cost of introducing the proposed National Care Service will cost four times as much as the Scottish Government estimated.

The attack on local authorities inherent in the plans for a National Care Service (NCS) was never well thought-out and this continued centralisation of power to the Scottish Government is hugely ironic, given the fact that it is the desire of Scotland for further devolved power from Westminster that gives the Scottish Government its power.

Would it not be wise for the Scottish Government to work out how to solve the ongoing issues with one huge national quango – the NHS – before creating another one at the unnecessary cost of billions to us all?

Karen Heath, Kirriemuir.

DANGERS OF THE GENDER BILL

IF the SNP thought political turmoil would fade with the Supreme Court ruling it was wrong. There is another pressing matter that will not go away.

To put to one side, or play down, or describe as bigotry, or dismiss in any way, the very real dangers of allowing people to chose their gender randomly is criminally wrong.

If those drafting these proposed new laws are not aware that there are predators who would use any method available to gain access to women and girls and take advantage of them, something is badly wrong. Preventing the very real danger of even one child or woman being harmed should be enough to kill this new gender bill as it stands stone dead.

I am aware that most trying to implement these changes mean well. I simply hope those experiencing the only too real difficulties of transition can be helped to happiness and acceptance without impinging on the rights of others to feel and be safe.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

GAELIC ISSUES MUST BE ADDRESSED

GABY McKay’s article (“How influx of Gaelic speakers could spell disaster for the Gaelic language”, November 20) paints a depressingly familiar picture of the rural housing crisis. He uses the statistics presented, alongside similar trends in short-term let and second-home ownership, to argue that Covid lockdowns have had particularly pernicious consequences for the future of "the language’s heartland" in the Highlands of Scotland.

In the article Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s development director, Iain MacMillan, said it is important to recognise that "traditional Gaelic areas" in the Highlands and Islands are facing wider societal issues, such as the housing crisis, which are also adversely affecting the language.

He told The Herald that for too long people from those areas had been told that to succeed they had to leave the area, and the language, behind. MacMillan took strong issue with this view: “Gaelic is my first language… It’s a natural part of who I am. I belong here, people like me belong here…There is something about the highlands and islands that attracts people, that gets hold of people. Part of that is wrapped up in the language and the culture.”

He said there was the beginning of multi-agency working to address the specific issues that traditional Gaelic areas face, to be expected given the provisions for Gaelic in the National Islands Plan. However, much more work is needed. This was a welcome, powerful argument by a senior Bòrd representative for special support for Gàidhealtachd areas.

It was in sharp contrast to the contribution of Wilson McLeod, Professor of Gaelic at Edinburgh University. He argued that special support measures, in relation to housing for instance, are sometimes simplistically presented (although he gave no verifiable examples of this) and went on to warn that in relation to implementing such policies, “once you get into it and start looking at the details of it, it becomes quite a complex policy problem and not an easy one to solve”.

It is not clear whether Professor McLeod believes that a problem being complex should impact on our willingness or ability to tackle it. No aspect of economic development, demographic change or language promotion is without complexity, no policy without risks or unintended consequences. Some of the most pressing issues facing humanity are intractable and complex, interrelated and multi-faceted, but they must be addressed nonetheless.

The heartland areas of Scottish Gaelic face a range of real and complex societal problems which impact upon the language and its communities. If we agree that these issues need addressed, surely we can overcome the technical questions raised by Prof McLeod, for the benefit of all of us who live in the Highlands and Islands, Gaelic speakers and potential Gaelic speakers.

Màrtainn Mac a’ Bhàillidh, Port Rìgh.

UK HAS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF

I AM grateful to Iain McIntyre (Letters, November 20) for chastising me for not knowing there was a Scottish National Grid. I will not make that mistake in future.

He says "most countries have policies in place to replace the 1.446 billion petrol/diesel cars in a sensible and realistic way". Can I ask which countries and the timescale?

As many predicted, COP27 has achieved absolutely nothing. No, I stand corrected. COP27 agreed to create a $1 trillion "loss and damage" fund for compensating poor nations which say they are victims of extreme weather caused by rich countries' carbon pollution. This will be paid by developed countries.

No agreement was reached on the vital agenda item of reducing emissions to keep global warming under a 2 degree increase. Some of the countries getting a slice of the $1 trillion are the most cruel, corrupt and dangerous regimes on Earth.

The Industrial Revolution lifted entire nations out of poverty and global life expectancy has risen from 29 in 1800 to 71 today. Britain has nothing to be ashamed of but UK taxpayers will be burdened with the horrific cost of a share of this $1 trillion loss and damage fund. We need another revolution.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow.

• DUNCAN Dewar (Letters, November 20) misses the point of my previous letter on harvests in East Africa. Climate alarmists always highlight bad news (like the Somalia famine) but never mention good news (like the record Zimbabwe harvest).

It is laudable, however, that he expresses concern for the Somalis and for the climate. Can I suggest that he goes beyond words? A quick internet search shows no fewer than six websites from charities asking for donations for Somalia. He and others of a similar mind could perhaps give one per cent of their salaries. And he can now get a credit card that informs him of the CO2 emissions associated with each purchase he makes along with a suggestion to donate money to a charity that will offset his emissions.

Geoff Moore, Alness.