If English voters look north, they might be persuaded against the Conservatives

Of those Labour governments, the only one to actually introduce real socialist policies was the Attlee government that came in in 1945. That administration was turfed out because of post-war austerity but its legacy of the NHS and other progressive measures lasted until the Thatcher government set about dismantling all the good things that had been achieved. When Labour got back in, very little changed: the railways were not re-nationalised as promised and the repressive trade union legislation was largely left unaltered.

I came to the conclusion that only by Scotland demonstrating to the rest of these isles the benefits of decent, fair-minded policies could we have a chance of avoiding almost everlasting Tory governments. I am sure that most of us who have switched to nationalism feel the same way. I feel sorry for ordinary, decent English voters but I wouldn't presume to foist a government of my choosing upon them even if that is what they are foisting on us. Perhaps if they could look over the Border and see that there is a better way, we will have done them a favour.

There is also the fact that Scotland is a nation with a history stretching back a thousand years and that the last 300 years of the Union have never extinguished our sense of nationhood.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead, Midlothian.

WHAT defines the SNP from Labour and its Unionist comrade in arms the Conservative Party is not "nationalism" (Letters, February 17). It is the denial, by the Unionists, of self-government: that is, political Independence to Scotland, a status hard fought for and cherished by many small nations throughout Europe and the world

Does A McCulloch deplore the Danish or the Finnish governments for the high standard of living in those countries achieved by enacting national policies to achieve that status?

Would this imply that these countries have no concern for the welfare of the wider world?

Of course not, as their humanitarian international policies clearly show.

An Independent Scotland, freed from the post-Brexit embrace of an increasingly right-wing Conservative UK, would be in a position to emulate these other small nations’ progressive policies.

Willie Douglas,

252 Nether Auldhouse Road, Glasgow.

TONY Blair’s intervention in the current Brexit goings-on begs the question: where was he during the EU referendum campaign and is this the same Tony Blair who vigorously opposed Scottish Independence, now claiming there is a case for it? Can we assume that in light of his intervention today and the actions of the majority of Labour MPs in the House of Commons last week, voting with the Conservatives to trigger article 50 on leaving the EU, Tony Blair has now ripped up his Labour Party membership?

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock, Falkirk.

THERE is a curious disconnect between Ruth Marr’s comments on Ruth Davidson (Letter, February) and a front page headline in the same issue: “Davidson: UK in fresh look at US ally reliability”.

Ms Marr correctly comments that “Ruth Davidson’s advice, like her principles, would appear to have a distinctly chameleon-like quality”. Whatever she says, at the end of the day, Theresa May is the Prime Minister of the UK and the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party – in both positions by default - and Ms Davidson has chopped and changed, slavishly following her orders.

Bearing this in mind, I am surprised at Ms Davidson’s remarks to the detriment of President Trump and the United States in general in an address in Washington. These remarks could not have been made as the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, as she has no locus in the Scottish political hierarchy, and I would not think that Mrs May would appreciate Ms Davidson parking her tank on the UK lawn. (Mrs May is very concerned to foster the “special relationship”, even phoning President Trump on Valentine’s Day.)

Perhaps it is her perceived polishing of her “celebrity” image? She does not speak for the UK, and she does not speak for Scotland, so who is it she does speak for – herself?

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

THE first independence referendum was lost by the SNP as the electorate in 2014 viewed prospects for an independent Scotland were poor owing to the economic climate. and voted conclusively to stay with the security and strength of the UK.

If the SNP is foolish enough to have a second premature bite of the cherry with another referendum then the outcome is likely to be an even stronger vote to stay in the Union, . as Scotland is now in an even weaker economic state than in 2014 with unemployment higher than rUK and our oil and gas industries at a new low.

Dennis Forbes Grattan,

3 Mugiemoss Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.

LAST week you quoted a poll which said that 36 per cent of people think the BBC is biased against independence (“One-third of Scots think BBC is biased”, The Herald, February 11). I wonder if, after Question Time from Glasgow (February 16), some of them have joined the 64 per cent who did not think so.

Only one panellist, David Mundell, was a clear Unionist, two, John Swinney and Val McDermid, were separatists and the other two, Mark Littlewood and Shami Chakrabarti, swung both ways. Judging by the number of questions and comments the audience seemed more nationalist.

I appreciate it is hard to get the balance right, but the panel and audience make-up surely went a long way to convincing nationalists that the BBC is not biased against independence. The programme may even have confirmed the views of many "No" voters that the BBC is at best soft on the topic and at worst pliant victims of the kind of intimidation that Stephen Daisley wrote about last month (“Opposition attacks SNP on media row”, The Herald, January 19).

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.