IT was interesting to see Labour leader Anas Sarwar’s recent call to rid Scotland of Tory MPs ("Sarwar warns supporters to expect ‘dirty tricks’ from SNP", The Herald, January 9). As he will be aware, of the Westminster seats currently held by the Tories in Scotland, it is the SNP who are in second place. In these seats, the Tories have majorities as low as 513 in Moray, held by Tory leader Douglas Ross, and 843 in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.

Labour languishes well behind in the seats, recording a derisory five per cent in Moray and even lower than this in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. Even in seats which Labour once held, such as Dumfries and Galloway, it recorded a less than 10 per cent vote share at the last Westminster election.

Mr Sarwar’s Labour Party has no chance of capturing Tory seats in Scotland, and if he truly wants to see Scotland as a Tory-free country, the only way this can genuinely be achieved is through voting for the SNP.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

Read more: Kate Forbes losing to Humza Yousaf was a tragedy

UK is broken irreparably

HOW desperate must the relatively poor become before the relatively wealthy in the UK take serious note and admit that the UK is irreparably broken; morally, democratically and economically?

While the UK joins the US in arming an Israeli government that appears intent on obliterating any presence of Palestinians on Palestinian lands, the UK Government attempts to deny refugees with a legal right to come to the UK entry to the UK. While Donald Trump maintains as President he had the right to do as he pleased, even to the extent of fermenting insurrection, the UK Government attempted to prorogue the UK Parliament and decided to override the judgement of the UK Supreme Court and declare Rwanda a “safe country”.

While victims of the Post Office scandal, recipients of infected blood and Windrush sufferers have been allowed to die before justice has been served, never mind appropriate compensation paid, the UK’s establishment political parties continue to reward donors and cronies with disproportionate influence, favourable contracts and even elevation to the still burgeoning House of Lords.

While the UK advocates democracy internationally the people of Scotland are denied a democratic path to self-determination and are compelled to be governed by politicians representing another country without their own parliament even having a voice in major decisions affecting all of the UK, such as with Brexit. While the UK "wealth gap" becomes increasingly obscene, food bank numbers explode, more people are condemned to homelessness in towns as well as in cities (many now verging on bankruptcy) and relative poverty continues to rise in supposedly one of the wealthiest states on the planet.

While interest on the colossal debt the UK Government has accumulated (much of it due to gross incompetency such as through the actions of PM Liz Truss) is currently costing around £300 million per day (and even a drastically shortened HS2 has just seen the estimated cost of the London to Birmingham sector rise by another £10 billion) some in Scotland seem more concerned with the fact that an SNP Scottish Government has spent £150,000 on a series of papers informing the Scottish public on how Scotland could progress as an independent country.

Of course there are those who are intent on distracting from the UK’s now dire straits but surely there must be a better way for the peoples of these islands to have their distinctive views properly represented while working to achieve higher levels of egalitarianism, social justice and well-being prosperity in a more climate-considerate world.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

The Herald: Stephen FlynnStephen Flynn (Image: PA)

Hypocrisy from Stephen Flynn

IN the House of Commons, SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn, arguably with justification, criticised the Tory Government's record for its role in the Post Office scandal. That said, the severity of this matter has been known to the SNP administration in Holyrood for 10 years, and yet scant governmental action was taken north of the Border. And let's remember that Humza Yousaf was Justice Secretary for a number of years during this period and surely must accept some personal responsibility.

Mr Flynn complains that Post Office staff "never stood a chance" against the Westminster establishment; yet, I suggest, nor did they against the SNP Holyrood hierarchy. Mr Flynn, in apparent desperation to regurgitate his usual anti-Westminster narrative, utterly fails to acknowledge his own party's culpability in this tragic affair. Are we surprised?

Martin Redfern, Melrose.

• I CAN'T believe the SNP, which just loves putting one over on Westminster, didn't act as a rallying point for Scottish postmasters. What an opportunity it missed to showcase our wonderful, separate legal system, our caring society and SNP Government and produce another argument for independence. Or maybe none of that's true any more?

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

What Yousaf actually said

I WAS minded to let it go but Brian Wilson ("Time to stop talking about independence", The Herald, January 11) is the straw that broke this camel's back, following on as he did from Carlos Alba ("SNP is steeped in the public sector", The Herald, January 10) and Jill Stephenson (Letters, January 9).

Could they critique what Humza Yousaf actually said and not make up, and attack, the strawman of what he didn't say?

He did not say that independence WOULD make every Scottish household £10,000 better off. He said that if the UK had average European levels of equality, then Scottish households would be between 8,000 and £10,000 better off. He then went into detail of how that COULD be achieved in an independent Scotland: with carefully targeted and timed capital investment, coupled with a better tax and spend system.

Now critique that, and stop with the strawmen.

Iain Cope, Glasgow.

• JILL Stephenson asks why Humza Yousaf chose Denmark, Ireland and Finland as comparators for a future independent Scotland. Their populations are roughly the same as Scotland’s and they are all Northern European. Her suggested alternatives are not Northern European and have markedly greater or smaller populations.

Her mischievous suggestion that ABE - anyone but England - motivates voters ignores the fact that Scotland’s 5.4 million citizens are completely dominated by 60.3m to the south, and cannot stop legislation inimical to Scotland’s interests. This unenviable situation can be removed by independence.

Colin Campbell, Kilbarchan.

Read more: After the Post Office saga, how about the Waspi scandal?

Talking Turkey

I AM trying to understand what the problem is with the First Minister shaking hands with the President of Turkey (“'No proper briefing’ ahead of FM’S Erdogan meeting”, The Herald, January 10) when we have ordered four ships from them. Am I missing something?

Bob Mitchell, Elderslie Ignoring the South of Scotland IN the latest Inside the NHS article ("Is it finally right time to restructure Scotland’s NHS health boards system?", The Herald, January 11) it is stated that former SNP Health Secretary Alex Neil set out his blueprint for a slimmed-down NHS Scotland. He proposed replacing the structure with three super-boards, north, east and west.

Why does a parliament in Edinburgh always ignore the South of Scotland? Is the area ignored in geography lessons or are those living in the rural south simply bypassed in Holyrood reviews?

Surely such an extensive area south of the Central Belt should not be excluded by an Edinburgh parliament.

Ian Moir, Castle Douglas.

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.


Conversion therapy alarm is misplaced

CAN I suggest that Irene Munro (Letters, January 11) has another read of the Scottish Government's consultation paper on ending conversion practices? The Government's proposals do not say what she suggests.

In particular, nothing proposed will criminalise anyone, and certainly not parents, for "exploratory therapy" or for "questioning" another's identity. The consultation paper is clear that to be caught by the new law, behaviour must include, as a minimum, three elements. It must be done with the deliberate aim of changing or suppressing a specific person's sexual orientation or gender identity (not just questioning it). The behaviour must also be coercive (which questioning of course is not). And the behaviour must be proven to have done real harm to the person it is aimed at.

Even behaviour that matches those three conditions is exempted from the new law if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances, and healthcare provision by a healthcare professional is also excluded from the scope of the bill.

So none of the situations mentioned by Ms Munro will be affected by the proposals in any way. Surely no-one would support coercive behaviour towards another person that causes them real harm, and for which there is no reasonable excuse?

Tim Hopkins, Equality Network, Edinburgh.