Readers' letters: Donald Dewar would be shocked by the level of debate today

In Bute House there are a series of photographic portraits illustrating politicians who have been the First Minister of Scotland. Donald Dewar was the very first to hold this office, charged with setting out a comprehensive legislative programme for Scotland

He was a man of intellect and integrity who undertook his duties with all due diligence expected from someone in this responsible position.

Sadly, the current incumbent, is a man who appears to demonstrate none of the above qualities and possesses little in the way of political craft or guile; who seems to spend more time involving himself in foreign affairs. Added to this, his inflammatory odious language while denigrating political opponents in such a vile manner does him or the SNP little credit.

Politics in Scotland never used to like this and If Donald Dewar were to see what represents our current government, he would be shocked at the mediocrity and how low the level of debate has fallen.

Donald Dewar shakes the hand of a well-wisher on May 12, 1999 - the day of the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament (Picture: Robert Perry)

Bruce Mireylees, Broughty Ferry, Dundee

An old slogan

There’s been a strange reaction from some to the SNP calling for a “Tory-free” Scotland after the next election. Is it outrageous to remind the public that this Westminster election is an opportunity to pass verdict on a useless Conservative government?

Unsurprisingly, after Brexit, after Windrush, the Post Office, Covid contracts, Covid law-breaking, after three inept Prime Ministers in five years – two of whom are miles ahead in the competition to be the UK’s worst ever – most of the Scottish public has had enough of the Conservatives and will vote accordingly.

The unfair Westminster first-past-the-post voting system can deliver an overall majority of MPs to a party with less than 40 per cent of the total votes and it can also deliver no MPs for the Conservatives in Scotland, even if their vote-share here is 20 per cent. That’s how it can work and the Conservatives don’t complain when they think it will favour them, as it often has.

Humza Yousaf was obviously referring to MPs and the potential consequences of a defective, out-dated UK voting system which denies proportional representation. This simple explanation did not get in the way of daft claims that the SNP was trying to deny democracy for Conservative voters. Even dafter to claim this really signalled an intention to drive Conservative voters out of the country.

In the past, Scottish Labour regularly made similar “Tory-free” calls without such a reaction – why this bizarre explosion of nonsense about Humza Yousaf?

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

Slippery slope

Reading yesterday’s Scotsman I see SNP and Green politicians are looking to make Scotland “Tory-free” and Leith “Zionist-free”. There was then a photo from a recent protest on the following pages with a sign saying “No more hate”. It’s very hard to reconcile the former with the latter.

Politicians of any party need to watch their language rather than suggesting Scotland needs to be free of people of certain views or backgrounds. To do otherwise is to stoke divisions and encourage hatred. I encourage Humza Yousaf and Green councillor Susan Rae to use their platforms to help build respect for others rather than seeking to stoke divisions even further. You can’t preach tolerance and then practise something very different.

J Lewis, Edinburgh

Diversion tactic

It is abundantly clear why the First Minister has decided to use the divisive rhetoric of having a “Tory-free” Scotland or questioning the “fitness” of Keir Starmer to lead the country.

He stood as the “continuity” candidate following Nicola Sturgeon who one recalls saying she “detested” all Tories. He simply does not want to be examined on the disastrous policy record of an SNP government that has been in power too long.

Further, the SNP continue with their quixotic Independence papers, with their latest paper on Defence in an Independent Scotland being universally derided but again it diverts focus away from their domestic record.

Unfortunately for the First Minister, the forthcoming election will be dominated by the SNP’s utter failure in education, health and transport and no diversionary tactics will take that the focus away.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

More hate

It is perhaps appropriate that Finn Russell chose the weekend to comment on the mental state of his teammates in the immediate aftermath of the Six Nations championship. As I understand it, once the Hate Crime bill becomes law such Grandslamaphobia will be deemed illegal.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk

Electoral reform

The latest prediction for the coming UK general election is that the Labour Party will take 43 per cent of the votes and 70 per cent of the seats. The Conservatives would be left holding 50 seats fewer even than they would have under proportional representation.

The magnitude of the expected swing means we now have a party in government with a respectable working majority but without practical reason for attachment to the defective system which inflated that majority. Conservative MPs could contemplate electoral reform dispassionately upon its merits, without the overriding consideration of self-interest which normally rules this out for those in power.

This is a narrow window of opportunity. Without reform now, many of the new Labour intake will face a one-term parliamentary career even under the old system: for them reform will be unthinkable.

MPs are debating the designation of “extremist” for those who don’t share our “British” value for democracy. They should pause to think which side of that line they themselves stand.

John Riseley, Harrogate, North Yorkshire

Seven came second

I do not want to detract from the achievements of the “Edinburgh Seven” (Scotsman, 19 March) but they were not “the first female students to matriculate anywhere in the UK” in their quest to become doctors.

I think that honour, if short-lived, belongs to Elizabeth Garrett (Anderson), who in 1856 was admitted to his chemistry class by Professor M Forster Heddle of St Andrews University. She was then issued with a matriculation certificate by the College administrator, only for this to be revoked after the other professors heard about it and sought opinion from the other Scottish universities. Heddle went on to teach her privately, and she was to become the first woman in Britain to qualify as a physician and surgeon.

Incidentally, it was Edinburgh University that was the most vociferous in objecting to the idea of women becoming doctors.

Hamish Johnston, Inverness, Highland

More clearances

When I lived in Glasgow in the distant past the problem – and it was a big on – was alcohol, which could be very expensive, with a bottle of blended whisky at £1.50 being near enough a workman’s daily wage.

I suspect that when drugs became more available one attraction was the same result at a smaller cost, and, by the way, Norway and Sweden at that time had a similar problem with alcohol, the latter inflicting imprisonment for driving even a little over the limit.

Leah Gunn Barrett (Letters, 19 March) mentions the Highland Clearances but not the Lowland equivalent, which numerically was greater. Dreadful as these were at the time, the underlying reason was, to use that now much overworked word, unsustainability and were not the work of the Westminster government – she needs to read a little more Devine and a little less Prebble.

That same argument applies to more recent clearances which are never mentioned. In my early life a 100-acre farm could supply a decent living for two or three families – it would require at least 500 acres today. Claiming that the UK Government shut down Scotland’s industries and failed to provide alternatives is also a little disingenuous – those industries were haemorrhaging resources, and serious attempts were made to provide alternatives, for example, “Silicon Valley”.

A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries and Galloway

Cloud cover

Hugh Pennington (Letters, 14 March) misquotes HL Mencken. The latter said that “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong” (no mention of “complex” ones).

One could respond that Mencken was not omniscient and that his claim is questionable. As a scientist, Prof Pennington should know that, for some problems, there are solutions that are “simple, neat and correct”. He is responsible for finding some.

I did not claim that the planet could be cooled by deploying “mirrors in space”, although that’s possible. Solar radiation is already reflected by deserts, ice-sheets and clouds. Even the oceans reflect some radiation and all these contribute to Earth’s average albedo, which is 0.3 (30 per cent of solar radiation is reflected).

I am a supporter of cooling the Earth by increasing its albedo, if only the albedo of clouds. This geoengineering can be achieved by a method known as 'marine cloud brightening'. It was first suggested by Professor John Latham in 1990.

I don’t think that we will stop global warming by any other method. Greenhouse gas emissions are not noticeably reducing and the atmosphere’s CO2 level continues to rise.

​Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.