THE First Minister has again made clear her hatred for the Tories and how she doesn’t want to see more Tory government ("Sturgeon supports deal with Labour to oust May”, The Herald, May 29).

If the results from the last Scottish parliamentary election and the recent local election are anything to go by, there is a sizeable minority who don’t have an issue with this.

Again, the SNP likes to portray Scotland as a big, centre-left, custard yellow, pro-immigration, pro-EU, anti-UK, monolithic block. This helps with party cohesion and assists her with another independence referendum.

There are far more diffuse and varied opinions in Scotland than she would like to admit. These opinions are also liable to change and move over time.

Because of our electoral system at Westminster and the recent spate of referendums, Scotland can often seem like the separate nation that the SNP wish it was.

In most cultural, societal, religious and, yes, even political issues, there is little noticeable difference in the UK, with the SNP usually grossly exaggerating what they find politically beneficial and largely ignoring the majority who don’t vote for them.

David Bone,

1 Ailsa Street West, Girvan.

TO be fair to Nicola Sturgeon she would no doubt have preferred not to have been drawn on the still relatively unlikely scenario of being able to forge some kind of alliance with Jeremy Corbyn to keep the Conservatives out, as she knows such talk could work against her. Indeed, there were probably a few of Andrew Neil’s questions she would have liked to have been re-phrased or not asked at all, but this latest interview left the First Minister largely on ground she wanted to avoid.

The exception of course was the definition of what a positive outcome would look like and what it would mean for Scotland. Here the First Minister was crystal clear. Victory in this General Election is being defined by the SNP in advance as having more seats in Scotland than any other single party, no matter if the clear overall majority vote for parties other than the SNP. In turn, such a “victory” will be interpreted as sufficient to justify continuing to demand an independence referendum rerun, no matter what the people of Scotland might want. It seems, more than ever, that the First Minister is determined to put her party’s interests before those of Scotland as a whole.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

I CANNOT believe that Nicola Sturgeon might seek a "progressive alliance" with the Labour Party which has set its face firmly against Scottish independence. What is progressive about the terrorist-loving crypto-Marxists trio of Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott among others? Prime Minister May might not be my ideal candidate but I could not imagine that trio negotiating Britain's exit from the EU. It would be even worse if Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats joined the proposed alliance

I'm afraid the SNP will lose my vote should Ms Sturgeon continue with this absurd plan.

Richard McLellan,

4 Stag Park, Lochgilphead, Argyll.

I HAVE supported Jeremy Corbyn in his efforts to develop a fairer and safer Britain. I believed that he would attempt to create a progressive alliance in a post-election United Kingdom. I felt sure his intelligence would lead him to the need for an informal arrangement with the SNP. But his comments in Glasgow have shifted my views into the negative sphere (“Corbyn: It’s between me and Nay at the ballot box”, The Herald, May 29).

To suggest that the SNP could have done more with the welfare powers “granted” by Westminster reveals either dishonesty or a misunderstanding of the precarious nature of the Barnett formula.

It also ignores the fact of the Scottish Government having had to use precious resources to mitigate the effects of the so-called bedroom tax.

There are no guarantees that the existing powers held by Holyrood will continue if the Conservatives win the election. There are certainly plenty of threatening noises.

If Mrs May is prepared to fight the election on foxhunting, there is no doubt that she will be prepared to promote legislation removing Holyrood powers.

It is also clear that Scottish fishing and farming rights are in her sights in the Brexit negotiations.

But to welfare powers; how could any pragmatic politician set up new systems of welfare rights when there is absolutely no certainty of having funding to carry them forward? The very nature of the Barnett formula means that every set of austerity cuts affects it.

Every time I hear the Scottish Labour Party and the Tories blaming austerity cuts in Scotland on the SNP, I have to reach for my blood pressure pills. What puzzles me about Labour figures like Mr Corbyn is their capacity to support independence struggles other than Scottish. Has he ever visited those empty glens supporting sheep and stags that once held vibrant communities?

Maggie Chetty,

36 Woodend Drive, Glasgow.

JUST what planet is Kezia Dugdale on? She has set herself, and the Scottish Labour Party, on a path of total opposition to Scottish independence (“Davidson and Dugdale reject referendum bid”, The Herald, May 29) citing as one of her reasons the so-called budget deficit of £15 billion that an independent Scotland would immediately inherit.

If she really believed that figure should she not stop and ask herself the simple question: if this Union which she supports is so wonderful and beneficial to Scotland, why, on independence, will Scotland be such an economic basket case?.

This is a Scotland that has been, for most of the past four decades, one of the world’s top 10 per capita oil producers. That production has greatly benefited the UK during that time, but apparently it has been of little benefit to Scotland; helped greatly I should say by the connivance of the Scottish Labour Party MPs of the time. Even today Scotland produces probably seven times its own usage of oil and gas, exporting the rest. Any other country with such a record would be grateful for the bounty but it is only here in Scotland that bountiful indigenous oil and gas production can be portrayed as a disaster.

Then there is the question of Scotland's population. A successful country would have had a steadily growing population over the past 50-60 years, especially one that has been blessed with the oil and gas windfall that Scotland received since 1975.

In 1951 Scotland's population was just under 5.2 million. Today it is “hailed”' to be just over 5.4 million. Few comparable countries have such a record of low population growth. Certainly none of the other similar-sized northern European countries. Such a static population over decades tells you a lot about how well your economy is performing. This is another legacy of being part of the London-centric UK that Ms Dugdale seems to find so attractive.

It is obvious that Ms Dugdale is either totally oblivious to or totally in denial of the position that Scotland now finds itself in vis-à-vis the last few decades of Westminster rule. She is damned on either count.

As for Ruth Davidson, her attachment to the Union flag while lambasting the SNP for using the Saltire says it all. For her, Scotland is not really a country. We should beware of the publicity this woman is getting.

Nick Dekker,

1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld.

I HAVE received a leaflet from the Tory candidate here in which there is not a single mention of the policies in Theresa May’s manifesto, nor any mention of the Prime Minister, but which contains seven references to independence, 11 references to the SNP, two references to Nicola Sturgeon and a picture of, and two references to, Ruth Davidson who, like the First Minister, is not a candidate in this Westminster election.

The Scottish Conservatives are mentioned four times, the abbreviation Con once, and Scottish Conservative and Unionist three times. Not a single policy is offered other than opposition to a second referendum.There is not a single mention of Brexit, nor any reference to the looming financial crisis, nor any statement on social policies which should be at the heart of the current debate. Yet these are the people who accuse the SNP of obsession with independence.

By comparison anything I have received from the SNP focuses on the real issues facing us in this Westminster election, from Brexit to austerity, from the rape clause to the benefits cap. These are the issues which SNP MPs have pursued and will continue to pursue on our behalf. They do not need to obsess on independence: all Scotland knows that they believe in it, but also that they will work unfailingly to protect Scottish interests.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

TOM Gordon's analysis of the Green Party's vainglorious attempt to portray itself as a national political force neatly encapsulates its dilemma (“Greens’ election strategy is a mess”, The Herald, May 27).

Should it continue to present itself as the natural leader on environmental matters, while putting up only three candidates for election, or confront uncomfortable reality and seek to achieve its objectives by other means?

A great deal of what the Greens promote appeals to voters across the political divide, for example its views on the need to tackle climate change while others, such as leaving ato and emasculating our armed forces, if not exactly coming from la-la land, seem unlikely to ever garner much support.

Is it perhaps time for the Green Party to reinvent itself as a powerful campaigning group on environmental issues, which probably were its members' initial energisers, rather than to pretend it can speak with authority on everything?

Bob Scott,

Creitendam Lodge, Balmaha Road, Drymen.