Letters: The Scottish Government can stand comparison with Westminster regime

The implication of Ms Ford’s letter is that the delays in transferring powers originate in Edinburgh. The Westminster department with which the Scottish Social Security Department must work is Work & Pensions, which has been trying to implement Universal Credit since 2013. By October last year, all eight million claimants of specific in and out of work benefits, were meant to have been transferred to Universal Credit. In fact, by then only 540,000 claimants (fewer than seven per cent) had been shifted and the implementation timetable now stretches to 2022. Ms Ford might consider that working with a department of such efficiency could itself pose serious challenges?

As for agricultural payments, the Westminster Government’s scheme for these incurred fines from the EU amounting to no less than £642m in the 10 years up to 2015. Its new system was 40 per cent over budget, ran late and paid out on only 38 per cent of claims on its first day of operation. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee claimed in a report in 2017 that “the Department's record of failure when developing systems to support subsidy payments to farmers does not inspire confidence in its ability to cope with the challenges associated with Brexit that lie ahead." Perhaps therein is another important reason why the disputed powers ought to come back to Scotland?

What Ms Ford misses, therefore, is that to make a judgment usually requires a comparator or a benchmark – “in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king” after all. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not at all suggesting that the Scottish Government has no shortcomings. It does. Nor is it above criticism. But if we are to draw any sort of reasoned conclusion about its performance, then that can only be done properly by setting its performance against that of the alternative, which is Westminster. Why do those of Ms Ford’s opinion on independence not do this? Could it be because, as the above suggests, this would show Westminster in a poor light, yet again?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

IN the febrile atmosphere in the House of Commons earlier this week, the star of the show – at least in his own eyes – was the Speaker, John Bercow. Mr Bercow constantly takes advantage of his elevated and unchallengeable position by giving long-winded lectures to elected members. But this week he was in his element when he had the chance to exclude all the SNP members for what he perceived as disrespect for the Chair – that is, himself. He underlined that attitude when his instruction to SNP leader Ian Blackford to leave was accompanied by a dismissive, demeaning and quite uncalled-for wave of the hand.

A former humble and unnoticed backbencher from some years ago, Speaker Bercow now appears to regard himself as the intellectual superior of all those on the benches in front of him. He often treats respected and experienced MPs as if they were naughty schoolboys, giving them long-winded lectures and admonitions, and of course gets away with it because they cannot answer back out of respect for the Chair – but I am sure not the occupant.

Mr Speaker Bercow also seems to have swallowed, but not fully digested, the Oxford English Dictionary, and indulges in long-winded and convoluted sentences just to give a simple reply or ruling. And of course other equally eloquent MPs cannot answer back, out of respect for the Chair but I am sure not for its current occupier. I am also sure many of them would, like me, be pleased to see a more competent and impressive Speaker in charge of the daily business of Parliament.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I KNOW people think David Mundell is a shade two-faced, but I think he took the biscuit, when interviewed by a Scottish TV Channel, he was seen wearing a tartan tie; later, when he was speaking on the Sewel Convention he had changed it to a House of Commons tie.

Which face is the real one? I will leave your readers to make up their own minds, I know what I think. Burns immediately springs to mind.

Mary Donnelly,

59 Newfield Crescent, Hamilton.

THE tactics being used by the SNP are troubling, to say the least. The SNP is not playing by the rules. It accuses everyone else of being wrong when blame can be spread evenly. The SNP has no mandate to block Brexit. Allied to this it cannot keep saying it is speaking for all Scots when a large percentage disagree with its ethos. This is an assault on democracy by a party that is not even a majority in Holyrood.

No one is going to invest in Scotland when they see this type of uncalled-for behaviour from a party that perceives it is not getting its own way. A few voters might be impressed by such tactics but most will be appalled that Scotland's good name can be tarnished in such a shocking way.

Blocking the UK's democratic vote to leave Europe will not encourage the EU to re-admit such an argumentative country into its ranks, if the SNP ever did achieve Scottish independence. It certainly does not need any more problem states.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

IS it not wonderful how life’s rich tapestry is reflected from time to time in the Scottish Parliament? Now we have had Richard Leonard asking the First Minister about hummingbirds ("To ‘beak’ or not to ‘beak’ ... that was the question", The Herald, June 15). It may not be widely known that humming birds have an extremely high metabolism. To conserve energy, when food is scarce, they can go into torpor. slowing down the metabolic rate to one-fifteenth of normal.

That characteristic of the hummingbird reminds me of the condition I sometimes lapse into when watching some of what passes for debate among our elected representatives at Holyrood without, by the way, actively seeking to save energy or cutting down on food consumption.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

I JUST hope the SNP stages a walkout of Holyrood. And doesn't come back.

Allan Sutherland,

1 Willow Row, Stonehaven.