IT is obviously a failure that Scotland’s Government has established no state enterprise to exploit or oversee the exploitation of our remarkable wind assets, unlike many of our neighbours ("Fury over China and UAE’s multi-million offshore wind profits", January 22). However, there should also be questions asked about CBI Scotland, which has missed the opportunity presented by 59-plus years of oil and gas production, and more recently onshore and offshore renewables, to build profitable enterprises on our very doorstep.

Scotland was a country built on engineering and still had much to offer when oil in Scottish waters was discovered, if this expertise had been properly utilised. I know the UK Treasury was so desperate for money it allowed foreign oil companies total leeway, but this does not excuse Scottish private industry standing at the side with its collective thumb in its mouths while foreign capital stole their lunch money.

Is capitalism dead in Scotland? Where are the new “giants” of industry in Scotland while opportunity goes a-begging? CBI Scotland certainly seems to be moribund, leaderless and utterly without ambition.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

GENDER BILL HAD CROSS-PARTY SUPPORT

I READ with interest three letters from correspondents today (January 22) all suggesting that the First Minister is defending the Gender Recognition Reform Bill as part of a wider "grievance" strategy against Westminster.

This view is essentially a conspiracy theory, which ignores two vital points.

First, when the Scottish Government brought forward the consultation on GRA reform in November 2017, the UK Government led by Theresa May was also proposing to legislate in the same way. (And it is important to note that the UK Government consultation document issued in July 2018 was clear that moving to a self-declaration system of legal gender recognition would have no impact on the law on single-sex spaces, just as the Scottish Government has argued).

In September 2020, however, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that his Government was dropping reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. It was at only this point that policy in Scotland began to diverge from policy in England and Wales. This was not something the Scottish Government could have predicted when it started the process of reform.

Secondly, far from being driven only by the SNP and Greens, there is an unusually high level of political consensus on the bill. Every party represented in Holyrood – excepting the Conservatives – made a commitment in their manifestos to implement GRA reform, and the bill was passed with a large majority of votes, including of some Tory MSPs.

This fact may be inconvenient for those who wish to present this dispute in a simplistic way. But the truth is that the Gender Recognition Reform Bill is a product of the whole parliament. MSPs from every party had a hand in developing and drafting it, and the Scottish Government has the strong support of MSPs in defending their legislation.

Mhairi Hunter, Glasgow.

CYNICAL ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY

MARTIN Redfern (Letters, January 23) does not examine the UK Government’s action in triggering Section 35 and thus its cruel choice to use trans people as pawns in a cultural and constitutional war.

The Scottish Government passed the Gender Recognition Reform legislation legally within its devolved powers after much scrutiny and debate by a cross-party majority of MSPs. This cannot be denied, no matter what your views. Similar legislation has been passed in a number of other countries including Ireland and it is considered standard. The UK recognises these laws in other countries as well. So its action in Scotland’s case is odd.

The use of Section 35 by Alister Jack is unprecedented and he uses executive power to stop Holyrood legislating. He rides across the elected representatives voted into Holyrood by the Scottish electorate and the action can be repeated with any legislation he feels like. When asked to come to Holyrood to explain his action and answer questions he said it was not his job. He also had difficulty in explaining what a gender recognition certificate was. This is farcical and sinister.

There is no GB law cited by Mr Redfern as having being breached. The three grounds of the UK Government’s objection to the legislation relate to administration difficulties (small and likely minimal); increase in fraud (most applicants likely to be genuine with small numbers and the Chief Constable can monitor applications and those with GRC can be excluded from safe spaces); the Equality Act (but this does not allow discrimination and those with malign intent can be excluded). There is apparently no justification for the nuclear option of Section 35 and the UK’s action in relation to Scotland seems more about about attacking democracy cynically and targeting a vulnerable group to do so.

Pol Yates, Edinburgh.

SO WHAT IS THE CASE FOR THE UK?

THREE of your frequent unionist correspondents appear again (January 22) with more and various attacks on the current Scottish Government.

The many points raised this week are well put and most certainly worthy of debate, and I do agree with them that all governments should be regularly examined and held to account.

I’ve said before that I am not especially pro-SNP but certainly pro-independence. My faith lies in the people who live and work in Scotland to survive, succeed and prosper rather than any particular colour of government, but that won’t happen if we remain in this disunited kingdom.

So can I please prevail on your unionist-minded readers to let me know why I really should not be pro-independence and not aspire to have our country be more like the many other small and very successful countries in the world?

In other words give us a sensible, cogent, rational, and well-thought-out case for remaining wed to the broken and corrupt system of government we have (and have had for many years) in Westminster.

George Archibald, West Linton.

SCOTS VOTERS WILL SURELY SEE SENSE

PUT aside the ongoing Gender Recognition Reform Bill deflections from the SNP. The Scottish Health Secretary’s recent grilling in Holyrood and on TV on the state of the NHS have been more enlightening. Viewers would have to keep reminding themselves that he and his party have been in total control for a very long time indeed.

In the end every question asked was answered in the same way. It seems things are worse in certain parts of the English NHS. I am sure the families of those stuck on trolleys in A&E departments for obscene lengths of time will get no succour from being told it is worse in other places in the UK, even were it true. Humza Yousaf floundered, clearly out of his depth and capabilities, and with the TV interview even his political opponents would have felt relieved when it was all over.

If this is the best level of competence that can be reached when nationalists – clearly with minds focused elsewhere – are in charge, surely enough of the voters who continue to send them back with majorities will start to use their own intelligence and help send them packing.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

UNTARNISHING THE STAR O' RABBIE BURNS

I ENJOYED Neil Mackay's Big Read ("Burns on trial: Would the Bard face cancellation in the ‘woke’ era?" January 22, and offer then following comments:

Oor Rabbie wiz a lad o pairts weel schulled in horticultural art

as weel as ither skills, far mair romantic.

But noo dominies fause want oor bard, nae wurth a fart!

His winchin and poesy tae the lassies sends them frantic.

“A Harvey Weinstein o' his day!” He's accused, in clishmaclavers.

Be e'en haundit, judge by the mores o' his time and no oors.

Seein it that wey, pits their sherrakins as pure haivers.

Forbye, he didnae need tae abuse his pooers....

thae dafties kinna think wi hindsight twenty-twenty:

a braw-lookin, weel-spoken wurkin chiel – the lassies cooried in a-plenty,

fur houghmagandie.

An aw that criticise his rovin fancy,

therr doctrines, Ah revile,

an they kin tak therr sorrie heids,

awa tae bile.

Roddie McKenzie, Dundee.

TIME TO ACT ON E-SCOOTERS

THE trial period to determine whether e-scooters should be allowed on UK roads ends later this year. There have been 17 fatalities involving e-scooters and there were 1,437 casualties in the year to June 2022, up from the year before of 1,033, so it is safe to say that since they appeared, mostly illegally on our roads, pavements and shopping malls, the injury count must be well over 4,000. Think of the additional pressure this has on the NHS.

There are over 750,000 privately-owned e-scooters being used illegally. These machines, and those in the trial, have been linked to assaults, thefts, violent robberies and other crimes. London Transport has banned e-scooters from trains and buses due to the risk of the lithium batteries going on fire.

At least the Metropolitan Police confiscated 3,637 of them in 2022 and about the same in 2021 so why is Police Scotland not arresting the riders of these illegal e-scooters, confiscating the machines and putting penalty points on driving licences? If e-scooters are not banned then there will be blood on politicians' hands. The public needs to be consulted.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow.