Herald on Sunday letters: which leader would you trust on Covid?

Let me say at the outset that I have no truck with either of their parties and policies which define their DNA.

On performance alone, we have one with a guid conceit of himself and the other with a commanding and realistic outlook on the way forward out of lockdown.

If the rumour is to be believed, the leader of the house in the Westminster parliament is intent on bringing back the baying hounds of the Government's backbenchers to give the PM the succour he apparently needs to deliver his shallow grasp of detail and his puffed-up promises in the teeth of a leader of the opposition who is master of his brief and tenacious with it.

Holyrood's FM presented her way out of lockdown in a calm, clear and concise manner in a delivery constrained by an emphasis upon the uncertainties which could lie ahead.

This contrasted well with both the bluster of Boris and her own unduly protective defence of the Covid outbreak at the Nike conference in the Edinburgh Hilton, which did her no favours, it being but another example of a politician desperate to camouflage her fallibility when deep down politicians view themselves as infallible and untouchable.

Nicola's careful and considered performance on the way out of lockdown struck the right note of caution and gave her audience both comfort and confidence that no rash steps will be taken to jeopardise the health of our nation whereas Boris made yet another exaggerated promise to have full TTI up and running by June 1, which certainly left me shaking my head at his hubristic hyperbole.

Of the two, my money would be on the bold Nicola to inspire the trust of the nation with regard to exiting lockdown sensibly rather than on the ebullient Boris who is setting himself up to defy all the odds on Covid-19 and the delivery of Brexit without compromise .

Denis Bruce

Bishopbriggs

What more is being slipped under the radar?

So, at a time where the UK Prime Minister decided to unilaterally remove England from the "four nations" approach to dealing with Covid-19 – without consulting/informing the Westminster parliament; the leaders of the devolved nations; the mayors of the large, northern, cities of England; or the local authorities who might be expected to resume schooling in England’s "state" schools – who’d have also expected that Northern Ireland would find out that there will, indeed, be a customs border with mainland Britain? Who’d have expected that frontline NHS staff and other public service workers would be informed about a new pay freeze coming their way? And who’d have expected that elected MPs representing farming constituencies in Scotland would have voted against a Conservative amendment to protect food standards post-Brexit – effectively threatening the livelihoods of those same farmers who helped elect them to be their "representative" at Westminster and, indeed, in Cabinet?

Who’d have expected our local representatives to open the door to chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated/genetically-modified meat/crops, and the removal of labels of origin for food?

Alister Jack (MP for Dumfries & Galloway and Secretary of State promoting the UK in Scotland) and his predecessor in that post, David Mundell (MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) joined the other Tory MPs "representing" constituencies in Scotland in voting against the food-standards amendment.

What else might the Westminster Brexit cabal have in mind, to slip-in under the radar, whilst we’re all being distracted by Covid-19?

Ian Waugh

Dumfries

Remember, this is how democracy functions

Is Nicola Sturgeon using the coronavirus to circumvent Scotland's usual democratic checks and balances?

At the start of the outbreak the SNP administration was worryingly quick to withdraw our right to submit Freedom of Information requests. Yet it's Nicola Sturgeon’s ongoing manner that's more concerning – how she deals with those who challenge any aspect of her handling of the pandemic in Scotland.

Opposition politicians are accused of playing party politics if they ask questions. Journalists are shot down on social media with the claim that they're suggesting the SNP leader doesn't care.

Despite Scotland having the worst death rate per thousand in the UK, only a very few would suggest Ms Sturgeon (and her largely invisible colleagues) don't care nor aren't trying. But Ms Sturgeon must accept that, in these exceptional times with so many dying in Scotland, it's imperative those who speak on our behalf have the right to do so freely and frequently.

Politicians and journalists must be able to question, challenge, disagree, proffer alternative solutions and make positive or negative criticism of the SNP administration that's responsible for attempting to control the infection and death rate. Ms Sturgeon, this is how a healthy democracy functions; please respect that.

Martin Redfern

Edinburgh

The modelling obsession

Nicola Sturgeon placed shielding “front and centre” with pensioners and any considered "vulnerable" put away until the virus has run its course. This is presumably why our golf courses are the only ones in Europe still on lockdown: through the week only pensioners turn up to play.

Now one of our leading public health experts has told her that "Shielding only works in models, not in real life, where healthy and vulnerable are integrated in households and communities. No Asian nations which have effectively tackled the disease have ever used shielding as a policy".

But I must warn Edinburgh University's Professor Sridhar that we are obsessed with computer models, whether in climate change or medical outcomes. In fact anyone quoting observations in nature or in populations will eventually be denounced as a "denier" and lose her research award.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

St Andrews

A missed masterpiece

In the early 17th century, when The Globe Theatre often experienced plagues,William Shakespeare was criticised for not writing a play about them.

"The Two Gentleman of Corona" was never commissioned.

John V Lloyd

Inverkeithing

Ferries: setting the record straight

I have read with interest several letters in these pages in recent weeks discussing the dual fuel ferry contract, and I wish to address a few points.

Lifeline ferry services are vital, and people are, rightly, vocal about current and future infrastructure. Opinions are always welcome, but it is important to maintain the facts.

The Programme Review Board set-up by the Scottish Government estimated the cost to complete the ferries, including remedial work and capital expenditure in the shipyard, at £110.3 million. That figure is unchanged.

Obscure calculations reaching “half a billion pounds” ("It's time to admit defeat on these ferries and start again from scratch", Herald on Sunday, 26 April 2020) are wildly inaccurate.

It is misleading to conflate investment in harbours with the cost of the dual fuel ferries.

Several ferry terminals have either reached or are nearing life expiry. Certainly, upgrades will directly benefit the arrival of the dual fuel ferries, but the harbour work is vital regardless of the vessel build programme.

Scrapping the dual fuel vessels is not the solution. The Scottish Government has committed to maintaining shipbuilding on the Clyde and the hundreds of jobs and the businesses supported by it. They have committed to completing the two dual fuel ferries and a future for the shipyard.

To start from scratch would begin a four-year process and that is time we do not have when island communities desperately await new ferries.

As an organisation with decades of shipbuilding experience among the team, we are deeply dismayed by the extensive time and cost overruns. The agreed contract price of £97 million and delivery timescales are comparable with LNG vessels built around the world and should have been achieved.

It is important to remember a private sector shipyard contractually committed to design and build the two dual fuel ferries and failed to deliver.

Kevin Hobbs

Chief executive

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd (CMAL)

• This issue is, for the time being, closed – Ed

Where are the female voices?

I always enjoy the letters page of the Herald on Sunday, but today I note that there is not one single letter from a woman.

What on earth is going on? Do you not receive any letters from women? Or, having received them, are the contents not considered sufficiently weighty or worthy for publication? Does the current crop of issues of debate in the letters (or indeed in the newspaper itself) not interest women?

However, it does have to be observed that the vast majority of the “heavyweight" commentary and analysis in the paper is by men, with the women writers getting a couple of pages between them, usually with fairly lightweight subject matter. Perhaps the problem starts there, but I am sure there is much more to it than that. Surely this lack of women's voices must concern us?

Can we hear from some women readers of the Herald on Sunday, please? I am sure more than 50% of the population has something to say!

Anne Clarke

Seamill

• We couldn't agree more. We would encourage anyone who has an opinion on something they read in The Herald on Sunday – or on current events – to send us a letter. The greater the diversity of contributions we get, the more interesting and engaging our letters pages will become – Ed

Which generation are we betraying?

As a Christian, I agree heartily with Neil Mackay ("We Betrayed one great generation," Herald on Sunday, March 10) on nearly everything, except his middle-class sneer at marriage. Judgmentalism would be unhelpful – and unchristian (there was illegitimacy in my past generations ago).

Surveys indicate cohabiting parents account for a fifth of couples with children, but a half of family breakdown (Millenium Cohort/O.N.S.); 92% of parents still together by a child's 15th birthday are married (British Household Panel) who also report higher self-esteem among teens in families with married parents; 32% of teens with unmarried parents display mental health problems, compared with 22% with married (Millenium Cohort).

We are also in danger of betraying the next generation.

Bob Philip

Falkirk