The saga of Health Secretary Michael Matheson’s iPad bill continues to grab the interest of our readers.

Yesterday, two of our readers came to his defence after the news that he was to pay back the near-£11,000 sum out of his own pocket.

Read those letters here 👈

Today, however, a correspondent argues that there are still questions for Mr Matheson to answer – as there are for the SNP.

George Rennie of Inverness writes:

"Two of your regular SNP-supporting correspondents are quick to paint Michael Matheson as a paragon of virtue for repaying the £11,000 he claimed on expenses for use of an iPad while on holiday in Morocco. However, they do not attempt to address the serious questions that remain unanswered over this issue.

First, Mr Matheson was reckless. He had been notified that the SIM card in his iPad needed changed. He was required to let the parliamentary authorities know he was intending to use it outside Europe. He did neither.

Secondly, why did he not use WiFi which was presumably available in his holiday accommodation?

Next, there is no evidence what online activities resulted in such an astronomic bill. We simply have Mr Matheson’s own assertion that it was used for legitimate purposes, a position that the parliamentary authorities appear to have accepted without seeking evidence to support it.

Finally, he chose to reclaim the whole amount as an expense and this was approved by the parliamentary authorities despite there being a policy that such claims should be capped at £200.

This is a long list of unanswered questions for both Mr Matheson and the parliamentary authorities.

In 2005 following questions which had arisen over the then Conservative leader’s taxi expenses, David McLetchie resigned. In response, an SNP spokesman said: “MSPs are accountable for the use of public money. Given the long list of unanswered questions about his expenses, Mr McLetchie’s position has become untenable, and so resignation was the only appropriate course of action.”

Why does the SNP now considered it to be acceptable for Mr Matheson to belatedly offer to pay back the expenses claimed rather than resigning?”