IT really is time that we had a uniform age of maturity. It used to be normally accepted that it was 18, although a marriage could be contracted by those aged 16 and over. Then Alex Salmond hit on the wheeze of lowering the voting age to 16, believing that the youngest cohorts would vote in droves for secession in 2014. He was wrong.

The SNP chose 16 as its baseline for gender self-declaration in the bill for Gender Recognition Reform which is now stalled, and 16 is again the minimum age chosen for the assisted dying bill. Yet the notorious Named Person legislation defined responsible adulthood as beginning at age 18, with all those younger than that requiring adult supervision. Further, the legal system now operates on the basis that - as affirmed by some medics - a young person’s brain continues to develop until age 25, and that sentencing a person younger than that should therefore be lenient.

This is an irrational hodge-podge. How can someone who is unaware that assault, murder or rape are very serious crimes have the level of judgment required to be able to cast a vote? Let us have one level of maturity for all purposes, and let it be based on rational, not populist, principles.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

• THE RSPB has, in a recent report on the illegal shooting of birds of prey, criticised the fact that only one person has been jailed out of 62 prosecutions in the last15 years. While I strongly condemn actions resulting in the illegal death of beautiful birds, it is hardly surprising that jailing is not more common given that sentences for assaults and other serious crimes on humans are being made more lenient and our overcrowded jails are letting many convicted criminals out early.

Furthermore, if the culprit is under 25, his/her brain will be considered too immature to be fully responsible for criminal actions despite, irrespective of intellectual maturity, being able to vote in elections in Scotland and possibly greatly influence our government and perhaps our future constitution. Progressive policies in Scotland?

Duncan Sooman, Milngavie.

Read more letters

This is not scaremongering

NORMAN Dryden (Letters, October 21) completely misses the point regarding those who oppose the proposed legislation on Assisted Dying. Those who are opposed to the legislation do so because they have seen what has happened in other countries, when legislation on this subject is introduced. Why is it that all the organisations who support people with disabilities are against it? Why are people like Tanni Grey-Thompson and Liz Carr are against it? It is because wherever legislation is introduced, it is immediately set against other legislation such as the Equalities Act, which will make mincement of the so-called "safeguards" which are being written into both the Holyrood and Westminster bills.

You only have to look at Canada to see what will happen here: army veterans with PTSD being offered Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID); patients citing poverty or housing uncertainty as their main reason for seeking to end their lives through MAID; numbers spiralling out of control: in 2016 when MAID was introduced, there were just over 1,000 cases but by 2022 this escalated to 13,241 deaths, accounting for 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Canada is now on the verge of introducing euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with mental health issues, with this change in the law coming into effect in March 2027. This is not scaremongering, this is reality.

People who want this legislation to succeed are looking inwardly at those who are giving personal examples of the sad situation that people find themselves in as they near death, and are afraid for a prolonged and/or painful death. This is something I understand. However, the people against this bill are looking outwards, and forwards, to see the (perhaps unintended) consequences of introducing these bills, consequences which have already come to pass in other countries. If we want a gentle and painless death, we should be screaming from the rooftops to get more substantial funding for hospices, where you will experience dignity in dying.

Eileen McCartin, Paisley.

Save our sandwich

IT’S midday, and I’m reading through the restaurant menu, looking for a light meal to provide succour after a busy morning, and energy prior to tackling my afternoon tasks. A toasted sandwich should fit the bill, and there’s a tempting list to run my eye down, featuring a variety of fillings.

There is however, a common denominator that concludes the detailed description of each and every sandwich, and indeed appears to have the character of a final flourish: each desirable sandwich is proudly proclaimed to be made with sourdough toast.

This, I have to say, is not a new experience, as sourdough toast has become the sine qua non of the world of sandwich-making, replacing the slices of traditional British bread which, with their comforting crunchy exterior enfolding a yielding and tasty filling, satisfied the taste buds of generations over the decades.

These days, however, operators of restaurants, cafes and coffee shops have decreed that a sandwich is only a sandwich if sourdough is used, and that ordinance presents the challenge of breaking through the cliff face of the crust, a task that requires the diner to have the teeth and jaws of an alligator.

Some of us, however, no longer retain these endowments in peak condition and are being deprived of our sandwich satisfaction. It is time now to take action against the dictatorial and thoughtless action of the purveyors of sandwiches. We must send out an SOS, a Save Our Sandwich demand, that a traditional sandwich must be an option on the menu.

So, this lunchtime, faced with a Hobson’s choice of a sandwich menu, what should I do? I decided it was time for a waffle.

Ian Hutcheson, Glasgow.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/24668106.safety-reliability-demand-a9-dualled-urgently/What's happened to the good old sandwich?

What a Guy...

I FEAR that Paul Lewis's suggestion (Letters, October 23) that someone donate dictionaries to MPs would have no effect.

A 1979 General Election poster declared: "Vote for Guy Fawkes; the only man to enter Parliament with honest intent."

David Miller, Milngavie.

Toilet trouble

FOLLOWING on from recent correspondence (Letters October 16, 18, 21 & 22), one announcement which makes me smile is the fairly regular message from the CalMac text alerts for the Largs-Cumbrae route: "The toilets on MV Loch Shira are out of order until further notice. We apologise for any inconvenience caused". Is this a convenience inconvenience?

Sandy Wright, Millport.