AS we approach the local council and Westminster elections it is truly fascinating to see how the political landscape is changing.

The once all-powerful Labour Party is now reduced to targeting three Westminster seats which it believes is a possibility it might win ("Labour to target just three key seats in election" The Herald, April 28). It seems that the party has realised that there are consequences in taking voters for granted.

Interestingly, the much-vilified Liberal Democrats appear to be experiencing a revival almost entirely due to their position on Brexit, namely, demanding a second referendum once the terms are known. The Greens appear to have tapped into the zeitgeist and as a party perceived to be pro-Europe and social responsibility are viewed positively as major party rather than a wasted vote. Ukip has become an absurd irrelevance as it tears itself apart.

This leaves the two main contenders: the SNP, which campaigns on its record of competence in government which certainly shows that it is outperforming virtually all of the rest of the UK in many areas. This coupled with stability within the party encourages voter confidence.

Finally we have the Conservatives, who seem to believe that all voters are stupid. They ask us to ignore the effects of their austerity policies on the poorest and weakest members of society. We have not to consider their tax breaks to major corporations. We certainly mustn't study the British Empire mark two which the right wing of their party believes is just around the corner. No, they have become a single-issue minority party trying to persuade us that a vote for it is not a wasted vote.

I received an election leaflet from the Conservatives which was stunning in the fact that it did not contain a single proposed policy. They are obviously so devoid of ideas and policies that all they offered was to be seen as a protest vote. Can politics sink any lower than this?

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.

I WAS bemused by the letter (April 28) from Alasdair Sampson. Why should business desert Scotland on achievement of independence? Why did this not happen when Malta became independent (or Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Norway, Estonia, and so on)? Any business would be very foolish to ignore a well-educated and skilled population of five million people, with world-class universities.

I have not banked with a "Scottish" bank for many years, preferring to do my banking through a UK-wide building society, which has many Scottish members and therefore is part Scottish-owned. There are virtually no "Scottish" banks now; RBS is owned by the UK Government, the Bank of Scotland was forced into a "shotgun marriage" by Gordon Brown after the financial crash, the Clydesdale was under Australian ownership until recently. Citizens of Scotland can start accounts with any bank willing to take them on; you do not have to go to Carlisle.

As regards tax: who does Mr Sampson think should pay most tax, in a civilised society, but those who can afford to? Perhaps he thinks the Westminster Government-style tax give-away to the wealthy is the way to do things. Good housekeeping should ensure strong welfare provision, good schooling, non-nuclear defence guarding our skies, fisheries and coastline, adequate taxation to pay for these things – and a high-wage economy would enable people to pay their taxes and enjoy life.

Only full Scottish independence can ensure these outcomes (for comparison, see Denmark; similar population, no oil). As long as we are tied to the undemocratic and backward UK Government, with its built-in majorities for the "nasty" party, the drain of wealth, resources and young people will continue unabated.

Regarding the so-called Scottish deficit, this is debatable, since the figures leading to the conclusion of a deficit are highly suspect and it is very difficult to separate out Scottish income and expenditure from that of the UK as a whole. The UK, unlike Norway (which has an oil fund), has blown the oil money, with nothing to show for it; no "oil fund", nothing. Its national debt runs into trillions, largely incurred under Conservative governments. We must not let Westminster get its hands on any revenue accruing from the new oil/gas discoveries west of Shetland.

Now we hear that banks and other businesses are preparing to leave the UK, due to the way Theresa May is pursuing Brexit. The English health service is in a deplorable state, with creeping privatisation. Is that good government?

Andrew McCrae,

35 St Andrews Drive, Gourock.

MP Stephen Gethin said on BBC Question Time last night (April 27) that the UK aid budget (£12 billion a year) is "a fraction of the cost of Trident". This is untrue.

According to a BBC website article, "Reality check: how much will renewing Trident cost?", the SNP - Mr Gethin's own party - and CND estimate that cost of replacement, including annual maintenance, over the 40-year life of the system is between £1.7bn and £2.2bn a year - a fraction of the aid budget.

Scotland's share of that would be about £200m a year, or £40 per person, which is 80p per week, or roughly two cigarettes.

Whatever your views on Trident a decision to scrap it can't be made on cost alone. Mr Gethin presents himself as a passionate, thoughtful politician. Why then does he distort facts on such a vital issue, and worse, why was he not challenged?

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.

THERE is merit in John S Milligan’s suggestion (Letters, April 27) that researchers, instead of using MRI scans to identify ageing brains, should reverse their strategy and identify the child-like immature brains likely to be found in some Scottish politicians in their research programme.

I am sure they would find some fine specimens which have never been used.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.