Herald on Sunday letters: what readers are talking about this week

Perhaps Mr Johnson realises that Ms Davidson is a one-trick pony, because although she did have some success at the 2017 General Election, she plummeted to fourth place at the EU elections two months ago, after devoting practically her entire campaign to promises of "stopping Nicola Sturgeon", whose party, incidentally, romped home in first place, while Ms Davidson's Tories were left flogging a dead horse when they trailed in a dismal fourth.

Ruth Marr,

Stirling

I see the kid-on "Scottish" tories are thinking of breaking away from their bosses in Westminster and will probably try to kid Scottish voters that they are all for devo max or similar.

I think we Scottish voters realise that Boris will slap them back into line and we know a con when we see one.

Bill Kerr

Cumbernauld

It is true that back in 2016 the clear majority of us in Scotland wanted the UK to remain in the EU. Yet once we have left the EU, whether at the end of October or later, and we see the reality of being outside the EU, how likely is it that there will be an appetite in Scotland to consider rejoining the EU on its terms?

The key driver just now seems to be more about justifying another push for independence rather than any tangible evidence that people would want to reverse the process once we are out.

Having gone through the pain of extracting ourselves from the EU, how readily will a clear majority in Scotland want to sign up once again to the Brussels ever-closer-union project? Whether people voted Remain or Leave in 2016, or No or Yes in 2014, is it not possible that the great majority will want to give life outside the EU a chance to prove itself, rather than act now based on the First Minister’s ever more bleak prognosis?

Keith Howell

West Linton

Your headline,''Independence: is it the only way to save the Scottish Tories?'' (The Herald on Sunday. 28.07.19) is the example par excellence of what has paralysed UK politics over the question of the UK quitting the EU, and moreover, what has always caused procrastination in our country, namely, analysis paralysis. The interminable discussion of national problems – without resolution.

It is this very British disease that has, over decades, prevented substantive improvements in the NHS, the education system, the national rail network – pick your own example! Does the UK really have the financial wherewithal or the time to squander on such academic frippery? As Benjamin Franklin said, ''If time be of all things the most precious, wasting time must be the greatest prodigality.''

Doug Clark

Currie

A difficult watch

I almost looked away. I didn’t, but almost did. Naming things is so important and nothing draws the eye better than a name. And there it was – three words that stopped me turning to the sports pages. Not the picture – suffering could have a photo montage running from here to the sun; not even its harrowing detail. No. It was that refusal of anonymity. Her name ("The death of innocence", Herald on Sunday, 28.07.19).

Just a few pages back I had read a piece about Richard Leonard’s rather clumsy attempt at defining class. However, what really caught my eye was the comment by Murdo Fraser the shadow finance secretary. Here too, three words – "bitterness and envy". The usual reactionary cliché; the dismissive old saw favoured by all those (from Edmund Burke to Boris Johnson) who can only perceive the basest motives in anyone who mentions class and its effects. All those who cannot imagine something better, something more ennobling for ones fellow humans.

Are we to believe that the suffragettes were merely envious? (If they’ve got a vote why cant I have one). Or that the chartists and the Tolpuddle martyrs were simply jealous of their so called betters? That Martin Luther King wanted nothing more than a seat at the top table? Was it the case that Spartacus merely wanted to sport the latest fashion in togas? Or that Nelson Mandela showed what a bitter old git he was as soon as he became president? Was the good Samaritan merely showing off?

No Mr Fraser, all of the above were reaching out. Were attempting a rescue. They were shining example s of the human spirit at its best. You will never understand this.

So thank you David Pratt (and the photographer). Things have got so bad I nearly looked away; because of you I didn’t. Now I know that Riham al-Abdullah existed. Now I know she had a sister, Touka. Now I know Riham is dead. Now I know she, dying, tried to reach out. Thank you.

Alex Porter

Stirling

Three simple questions

Anent (good word as Alan Taylor would say!) Alexander McKay’s latest diatribe against the SNP (Letters, July 28), I would like to ask him three questions:

1 Would the SNP not have been accused of blatant hypocrisy had they stood and applauded a PM who disrespected them at every turn?

2 Did he think it was OK for Farage’s mob to totally disrespect the European Parliament by ostentatiously turning their backs during the European anthem?

3 Why in the name of the wee man would William Wallace be birling in his grave?

I’d love to know his response to these perfectly legitimate questions.

Ian Baillie

Alexandria

Wickedness of Trident

It is exquisitely appropriate that Boris Johnson, with no democratic mandate, should visit Faslane when venturing into darkest Jockistan on his mission to preach the glories of our Precious Union.

This vile place is the Holy of Holies of Britishness. Here we guard our sacrosanct talisman, our Ark of the Covenant, Trident, the sacred symbol of our divine right to possess the world’s most powerful machine for the mass killing of human beings, a privilege denied to lesser breeds.

In the bad old days they put people into cattle trucks and trundled them off to be burnt in ovens. Nowadays, thanks to wonderful advances in science, we can incinerate them while they are sleeping, having lunch, or watching telly. We operate a kind of home delivery system for obliteration, and Faslane is our Belsen sur-le-Clyde.

Human malevolence can conceive of no more wicked an object. Trident is the worst thing in the world. Since global suicide does not constitute a rational defence policy, it is also clinically insane. This obscenity is supported by all the Unionist parties, but rejected on principle by all who support independence.

With the best will in the world, I simply cannot understand why any thinking person should choose Trident and Unionism over independence and no Trident.

Can somebody – anybody – please explain to me how someone can hate independence more than they hate Trident?

Brian Quail

Glasgow

Give us facts, not Rebellion

Sandra Phelps' and Alex Porter's attacks (Letters, July 28) on Clark Cross's criticism of the Extinction Rebellion protests are strong on conscience and emotion but weak on the relevant facts and points in Mr Cross's arguments.

Cross, in pointing out that the preponderance of the world's greenhouse gases are emitted by China, the USA, Russia and India and others not curbing carbon, makes clear that there is, in reality, very little we can do to help global decarbonisation: every little cannot help.

Anyway, there is no proof at all of any influence on the climate by decarbonisation of home, industry and hospitals, transport or travel.

However, attempts to decarbonise are horrendously costly. They deprive vital expeditures on health and welfare, education, domestic heating and cooling, the infrastructure, industrial competitiveness and defence.

Extinction Rebellion is calling for more to be done to prevent manmade climate change, but it should more relevantly complain to China and other non-complying nations.

In the UK, trillions are being committed to combating adverse climate events. That despite our only trivial proportionate contribution, 1.13%, to the planet's total output of CO2.

One could ask "What more do Extinction Rebellion want us to do"? If they can offer further good, practical ideas, they must please state them.

(Dr) Charles Wardrop

Perth