It's high time this First Minister was replaced

Her disrespectful retort to the Presiding Officer proved to me what I have felt for a long time, and that is that the First Minister is now a dictator who won't let anyone say anything that she doesn't agree with. This should not be allowed in the Scottish Parliament, and Ms Sturgeon should be forced to apologise to the Presiding Officer who was, after all, only doing her job.

Ms Sturgeon has been in her job too long now, and thinks that she can ride roughshod over anyone. It's high time we had a change of First Minister, or even better, a change of government in Scotland.
George Cowie, Buckie

EU no place for socialists

STAN Grodynski (Letters, December 8) tell us that "principled socialists in Scotland will have the option of voting for the SNP or the Greens, or another independence-supporting progressive party, in a de facto referendum". One has to wonder what socialist (whether "principled" or not) would vote for the annual cuts of more than £10 billion in public expenditure which the SNP Scottish Government tells us independence would entail.

Likewise, Mr Grodynski offers those same socialists the prospect of EU membership – he seems unaware that Brexit was a long-term objective of the British and Scottish left; that the EU single market was a creation of that well-known socialist Margaret Thatcher; and that the EU's duplicitous actions destroyed the entire welfare state in Greece to protect the interests of French and German banks. It would do the same to an independent Scotland if it were in the interests of big business in the dominant large member states.

The EU may be many things, and some of them may be good, but socialist it most definitely is not.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow

Brown needs to face the facts

GORDON Brown should face certain facts.

First, Westminster governments have let us down in recent years with the result that neither major party has more than a minority of Scottish votes. In Wales and Northern Ireland only one of them has a significant share of power. Further, it is now evident that the devolved powers do not include the right of a democratic vote to leave the present system of governance.

Secondly, the balance of power in Westminster is such that any finance, trade or energy policies which most of England prefers will be enacted irrespective of the wishes of the other home nations (hence an incomplete Brexit, poll tax, and more).

Thirdly, the same balance of power will allow both parties to elect a PM best suited to win the next election, no matter his ability to rule or act in all our best interests. This fact alone defeats most of Mr Brown's proposals.

Gordon Brown gained a masters degree in history so he should understand that both Houses in Westminster were founded by England then adapted only slightly to give a pretence of power to the other three home nations. The House of Lords is only one example of the "old school" or "jobs (and money) for the boys" attitude in Parliament and the civil service.

In senior school our students are encouraged to get workplace experience. Perhaps our parliamentary candidates, especially the Eton cronies, should be forced to do the same outwith their safe and wealthy environments. Then future governmental policies might suit actual conditions.

Meantime poor government will allow nationalism and the wish to gain independence to spread, even amongst those of us who would prefer a truly united kingdom.
JB Drummond, Kilmarnock

No answers on lopsided UK

TOM Gordon is correct: polls are only a transitory indication of preference, but he is also wrong to use relatively short term polling as a “trend” ("A good poll headline on independence, but warnings for the SNP too", The Herald, December 8). The electoral history over the last half century shows the SNP gaining, then losing support in cycles, but its high tide-line always washes a little higher up the beach with each surge.

The Brown proposals have no answers on what constitutes a mandate or entrenching the Sewel Convention, nor on voting reform, or the lopsided nature of the UK on wealth, investment and political hegemony; preserving Westminster “sovereignty” seems to be its main goal. No one believes Labour will ever reform the House of Lords after a century of obfuscation and cant.

If Unionists were serious about reform of the UK, then a confederation between sovereign entities (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) might be a more genuine solution.
GR Weir, Ochiltree

Flynn victory was decisive

USING an assortment of adjectives to reinforce the result, we have been told incessantly by the posse of anti-independence letter writers since the 2014 referendum that independence was rejected by an overwhelming majority of 55% against 45%. The truth is only 191,969 votes from No to Yes would have changed the result – hardly overwhelming.

Today we are informed by Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, December 8) that the SNP leadership vote for Westminster was a “reasonably close-run affair”. An examination of the voting percentages shows 60.49% voted for Stephen Flynn and 39.51% for Alison Thewliss. To me that is an overwhelming result and the 2014 independence referendum a reasonably close-run affair.
Alan M Morris, Blanefield

Brass neck in House of Lords

I PRACTICALLY fell off my chair on Wednesday evening as I read online your account of the response of Malcolm Offord to a question in the House of Lords earlier on Wednesday ("Scottish Government told to 'cease and desist' Indyref2 work", heraldscotland, December 7).

It seems Lord Offord has a brass neck to go with his ermine. The phrase "double standards" was surely invented to describe the situation where he, an unelected Conservative minister, was giving a lecture to the Scottish Government about crossing the line between devolved and reserved matters when, since 2016, the UK Government has passed three large Acts without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. There are several further bills in Westminster which will also cross over into devolved matters, or give UK ministers powers in devolved matters.

Given the non-legal status of the Sewel Convention, which was supposed to prevent UK Government encroachment, should we Scots accept that this as the new "normal"? I think not.
David Patrick, Edinburgh

A long list of failings

YOUR correspondent W MacIntyre (Letters, December 7) lists real or perceived failings of the Scottish Government in recent times. Without going into details, all I can say is Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Liz Truss, Suella Braverman and Michelle Mone.

UK governance has certainly been in good hands over the last few years.
Gordon Evans, Glasgow

Labour should help resolve strikes

IT appears that everyone wants to strike for better pay and conditions, and one wonders where it will end.

I wonder if this would have happened with a Labour government, with the financial backing the party receives from the unions.

Sir Keir Starmer as ever does not condemn the unions and has little or no solution other than ridiculing or arguing for the sake of arguing.

I am aware that Labour is the opposition and that is what it is doing, but I wish that Labour and the unions would get together and talk constructively about the strikers' conditions and resolve this situation in which the UK finds itself.

Over this festive season the trains are off and flights will be delayed by Border Force strikes ("Travellers warned over airport strike days", The Herald, December 8), not to mention the problems with our local flights to the Highlands and Islands.

I won't be sending any Christmas cards either as our Royal Mail is on strike.

It definitely is not the season to be jolly.
Neil Stewart, Balfron

Read more letters: De facto indyref is the best hope for true socialists

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