THE election of 31 Conservative MSPs is, I believe, bad news for Scotland. Not because they will turn our remaining steelworks into wastelands, or block funding of renewable energy generation and carbon capture, or support increased financial hardship for disabled people. Both before and during the election campaign, the party’s spokespeople have taken a much more moderate stance than their Westminster counterparts on many issues. The party which before 1999 opposed devolution became the quickest to adopt it in practice, and although they didn’t follow Murdo Fraser’s plan to form a new party altogether, the Scottish Conservatives have developed their own identity in a way that Labour are only now (perhaps) beginning to attempt, and even the Lib Dems haven’t achieved. So I do not fear the ghost of Margaret Thatcher returning to haunt Scotland, at least not through Holyrood.

My concern is the focus of the party on the constitutional question. In 2014 we voted nO by a reasonably convincing majority. The referendum was often seen as causing division: in communities, in workplaces, in families. Some of that did happen. But there was also a strength in this: it demonstrated that support for independence, and support for the Union, were not tribal allegiances. Most of us continued to get on with each other regardless of which way we voted. The SNP obviously exists to promote Scottish independence and want to keep the idea alive. And yet it has, by and large, accepted that it isn’t going to happen any time soon (barring upsets over a Brexit vote). This makes sense. The Liberal Democrats and Labour have stated their opposition to another referendum but have accepted, pragmatically, that some of their supporters may favour independence. This also makes sense. Scotland needs parties which are agnostic on the constitutional question, in order to focus on good government. The Tories, on the other hand, by making their opposition to another (hypothetical) referendum the key plank of their campaign, have perpetuated the issue and so risk entrenching polarised opinions. At a time when opposing independence need have taken no more energy than opposing an invasion of Martians, they have created a potentially toxic divide in the body politic.

David Summers,

5 Aspen Place, Culloden, Inverness.

IT has been suggested in some sections of the right-wing press that the SNP suffered an ignominious rejection, while the Conservatives achieved gigantic success.

Of course, that is complete nonsense. In 2011, having circumvented the d’Hondt PR-related formula, which is intended to prevent any party gaining an overall majority of seats, it achieved just that, so, its just less than 50 per cent of the vote, and of the seats in this election was precisely the maximum it could reach while conforming to d’Hondt. So, there was no valid electoral loss – it achieved its entitlement. Had any Unionist party reached that they would have been ecstatic.

Ruth Davidson seemed to sideline mention of “Conservative” in her rhetoric, and to not require a boost from David Cameron’s attendance here. Her mantra was to save the Union, and to hold the SNP Government to account. Acceptance of defeat, and to coming second are strange benchmarks for a Conservative party. She openly admits that she attracted support from people who were not true blue Tories. The evidence seems to support that in spades – the swing to Conservative came from erstwhile Labour supporters who had become disillusioned by Labour’s prevarication about whether or not to support independence in certain circumstances. That replicated the newly-found camaraderie between them that had dominated the Better Together faction in the 2014 referendum, which poisoned the relationship between supporters of the respective parties, to their eternal detriment.

We should keep an eye on the tactics of the Conservatives as they tackle the detested SNP as it governs. Their immediate target, whether they like it or not, will be to clarify their attitude to what the SNP refer to as “Tory cuts” to which are attributed the return to austerity, at least in the public sector. Will they roll over as the next tranche bites into already finite financial resources, or will they join with their left-wing colleagues at Holyrood to offset the cuts with, say, a 1p income tax increase? But they are against having a different tax rate from that in England. Not only that, the Barnett formula creates a shortfall in funding at our preferential per capita rate compared with England – and English taxpayers consider they are subsidising our excess. What solution does Ruth Davidson propose for replenishing that loss?

Our excess funding originates from Unionist Westminster governments pouring extra money into Scotland in the post-war years to stem the nationalist threat, and we are lumbered with repaying our share of the £160bn accumulated borrowing left by Labour in 2010. Doe Ms Davidson think it is unacceptable for these to be now referred to as Scotland’s deficit?

Is it not the case that it is the Conservatives that need to be called to account?

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

LET us give hearty congratulations to Ruth Davidson. She led her troops to glorious defeat. In fact even if she had joined with her allies in the Labour Unionist party she would still have been soundly thrashed.

What is more important is that she wiped the words “Tory” and “Conservative” from the Scottish political scene. Vote for the Ruth Davidson Nae Policy Party and oppose an independence referendum. In fact, throughout the campaign she spent more time talking about independence than any other politician.

She has almost guaranteed that Scotland's independence will remain centre stage in every political discourse until Britain breaks up and Scotland forges a new and more satisfying partnership with the rest of the UK.

George Leslie,

North Glassock, Fenwick.