IT was interesting to hear, on the Salmond-Sturgeon TV programme, A Troubled Union, this week that David Cameron admitted that having a single binary Yes/No question in 2014 was his priority. He was asked why he had left the terms of the referendum to Alex Salmond to choose, and that was what he said: he did not want there to be a third choice on "devo-max".

In doing this, Lord Cameron hobbled the pro-UK side almost disastrously. Mr Salmond chose the question, giving his side the positive Yes answer, which undoubtedly won him extra votes. He chose the electorate, thinking 16-17-year-olds would vote overwhelmingly for Yes. In fact, they broke 51 per cent for No to 49 per cent for Yes. Most damagingly of all, Alex Salmond chose the date, giving himself the perceived advantages of the 1314 septcentenary and the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which he imagined would enhance feelings of "Scottishness". Thus he allowed himself almost two years to campaign and to spread a tissue of lies about Scotland and the UK. Had David Cameron been on the ball, he would have demanded, at the Edinburgh Agreement in October 2012, that the referendum be held within a year of that date. Separatist support would still have been very low at that point, and, after an overwhelming defeat for secession, we would have been spared the miseries of the last 10 years.

This may seem irrelevant now, with secession off the table for the foreseeable future. Still, one would hope that future pro-UK politicians would take account of David Cameron’s errors if separatism once again became a live issue.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

Dodging the blame

WATCHING the BBC Scotland documentary about the latterly-fraught relationship between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon did not tell us much that was new, but it did serve to illustrate how these two ex-First Ministers along with other leading figures in the SNP are seeking to salvage or protect their reputations. The SNP leadership has of course always been quick to blame others for what befalls them, but increasingly they are now willing to blame each other.

Throughout Ms Sturgeon’s time at the helm of the SNP, it was of course the current First Minister, John Swinney, who so often played the role of the SNP’s apologist in chief for the misjudgments, broken promises and failings of their government. Whether in response to media questions or in Holyrood debates and committee inquiries, he developed a knack of talking at length whilst revealing as little as possible. Now separately, he and Alex Salmond want us to believe that at key points they tried to warn Nicola Sturgeon when she was about to go wrong.

Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Humza Yousaf popped up, now expressing surprise and dismay at Mr Salmond’s abuse of his position, despite himself being a prominent insider at the time who would surely, along with Ms Sturgeon and Mr Swinney, have been aware of their then leader’s failings.

Equally, as Mr Salmond renewed his accusations of civil servants conspiring to bring him down, it was a little ironic to recall that he had arguably encouraged the first politicisation of the Scottish civil service in the manner in which they were used to pursue the SNP’s drive for independence in the run-up to the 2014 referendum.

The full consequences of the actions of those who have dominated the SNP and in turn Scottish politics over the past 20 years have some way yet to go.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

Read more letters:

Why must MPs have houses?

RACHEL Reeves indulges in some mental gymnastics in insisting that it was difficult but worthwhile for her Government to decide to means-test the annual £300 winter fuel payment to pensioners in an attempt to save some money, whilst in effect insisting it would not be right for her to be means-tested similarly for £600 she has been claiming, and will no doubt continue to claim, annually for her energy costs in her London home because that is no more than the long-standing rule ("Chancellor defends claiming thousands of pounds in energy expenses", The Herald, September 12). So what? Why not abolish that rule in her declared mission to save some money? MPs, let alone Chancellors, would fail any means test as they earn more than enough to pay their way.

Another difficult but worthwhile decision to make?

As for her argument that MPs “have to have a house in London", why, and why does it have to be “a house"? Their tenure can only be temporary so why not accommodate them in a hotel or equivalent, like the migrants? One readily available facility that springs to mind is the currently redundant Bibby Stockholm which has accommodation for 500. It could be tied up conveniently on the Thames alongside the Parliamentary buildings to house the MPs and keep them snug and warm (again just like it was intended for the migrants) on the days when they must be in London. Think of the savings that difficult but worthwhile decision could bring.

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Get the Letter of the Day straight to your inbox.


What would Bevan have said?

THE cutting of the winter fuel allowance is a profound moment of political disconnection for the Labour Party. For many pensioners this will be an issue which will be locked away to be brought out in future as and when they feel that circumstances justify it.They will remember that the Labour Party let them down. They will also remember those who voted in favour of the Government proposals and those who abstained.

One wonders what Aneurin Bevan would have made of the events this week and of the role played by a Labour government in them. Bevan, the driving force behind the creation of the NHS, eventually resigned from the Government led by Clement Attlee over the introduction of charges for dental work, optical services and prescriptions. He was not prepared to agree to a breach of socialist principles with respect to these matters for the sake of £13 million. This week we can see how far Keir Starmer is prepared to go to save £1.4 billion.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.

Why not a wealth tax?

SIR Keir Starmer said that he is not immune to the hardship 860,000 pensioners will face in Scotland due to the Labour Government's withdrawal of the winter fuel payment.

He then repeated the mantra that Rachel Reeves had audited the books and had discovered the black hole of £22 billion, except that she hadn't; £10bn of that is accounted for by commendable public sector pay increases.

I would suggest what Sir Keir is genuinely immune to are the demands by the TUC and others for a wealth tax which would bring in as much as £22bn per annum. He could start with a 2% levy on those with assets of more than £10m.That would affect 0.04% of the UK population.

When Anas Sarwar was granted an audience, was he expressing concern that a new poll has shown more than half of pensioners will turn the heating down or highlighting the cold chill that the Scottish election 2026 had been handed on a plate to the SNP?

The Highlands can be up to 20C colder than the cosy London home of the Labour leader. Are we now "the far away country of which we know nothing"?

John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing.

Rachel Reeves in the House of CommonsRachel Reeves in the House of Commons (Image: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire)

Who will tackle inequality?

IT is reported ("Questions over inequality policies", The Herald, September 12) that health and inequalities are not improving in Scotland and that relative poverty among children remains an issue.

Unfortunately, the problem of wealth inequality, the gap between the "haves and the have-nots", is not confined to Scotland or the UK.

It is difficult to reconcile the fact that food banks should be necessary and that people should be concerned about being able to afford to keep warm over the coming winter months with pictures of thousands attending sporting or entertainment events at home or internationally. Cruise ships queue at ports to disgorge thousands of well-fed passengers at overcrowded holiday hot spots who can encounter residents resentful of being priced out of accommodation in their own towns by overseas-based owners. Worldwide, marinas are packed with unimaginably expensive and seldom-used sailing boats. Roads are choked with vehicles often selected to display their owners' wealth. While the list is endless, millions of our fellow human beings survive without adequate shelter, or clean water, at risk of disease or malnourishment.

Sadly, what is so evident is that, in many countries, however many suffer extreme, as opposed to relevant poverty, the places are awash with weapons. Globally, the merchants of death grow fat at the expense of the poor.

Tackling the causes of climate change is vital, but where is the motivation to tackle the equally pressing global problem of the inequality of wealth distribution?

In the meantime, the rich continue to get richer while the poor become even poorer.

Malcolm Allan, Bishopbriggs.