THE Green Party received fewer than 6,000 votes in Scotland in the last General Election (2017) out of an electorate of nearly four million. Surely it is time for the party to review (and then drop) its policy of taking Scotland out of the UK? The referendum on leaving the UK showed that the majority here do not want a border separating us from the rest of the UK. Likewise, opinion polls consistently show that people want to continue using the pound, rather than adopting either a new Scottish currency or the euro. The Greens are losing votes by sticking with their irrelevant separatist policy.

The real issue for us all is carbon emissions and impending climate chaos. The UK has shown its commitment by closing all its coal-fired power stations (despite SNP objections over Longannet) and installing thousands of wind turbines. Contrast that UK effort with the building of three new coal-fired power stations in Germany over the last 10 years, driving their emissions up, not down. It is time the Greens took a fresh look at what they stand for and gave the UK the credit it deserves.

Les Reid, Edinburgh EH15.

IT was interesting to note Boris Johnson’s announcement that plans to cut corporation tax from 19 per cent to 17 per cent next April are to be put on hold, with the money saved being spent on the NHS and other services ("Johnson’s double vow: No debate with FM and no Indyref2", The Herald, November 19).

He noted that this would cost the Treasury £6 billion and was better spent on "national priorities", including the health service.

This is intriguing to note on two counts. First, given the Tories' claim has long been that cuts to corporation tax raise revenue, an argument used again in this case, it is intriguing to see the PM now highlighting that such cuts will actually cost many billions of pounds.

It is also interesting to note that pre-election the Tories were happy to spend £6bn on such tax cuts, but with an election called they feel this money should instead be spent on the NHS and other “national priorities”.

It is indeed interesting to see where Tory priorities lie.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh EH9.

JILL Stephenson (Letters, November 21) presents the remarkable thesis that as the SNP’s Remain campaign in 2016 was “lukewarm”, spending less “than it spent on a council by-election in Glenrothes”, it is pleased with the Leave outcome to the EU referendum as it provides “an excuse for demanding another Scottish referendum”.

However, as the Scottish Remain vote was 62 per cent, its Baldrick-style “cunning plan” of a lukewarm Remain campaign didn’t do much of a job, here at least.

If the SNP’s EU campaign was “lukewarm”, it’s important to bear in mind that it preceded three others since 2014 – the independence referendum, the 2015 UK election and the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, the last of these being a mere seven weeks before the EU referendum vote, winning the last two, and indeed, as a Remain party also the EU referendum in Scotland.

Ms Stephenson’s thesis is an example of a post-hoc rationalisation which is defined as an explanation “formulated after the fact”. Unfortunately, she has shown little regard for the facts.

Likewise, when she asserts in an ex cathedra manner that “the EU Commission confirmed that [Scotland would “crash out of the EU” if it voted Yes] in writing” she again treats the facts with disdain. Quite simply the Commission never gave its opinion for it was not asked in an official capacity. Yes, such as Viviane Redding and Jose Manuel Barroso did so in a personal capacity, but the Commission would only give an official opinion if asked by a member state. As David Cameron’s stance was that he would under no circumstances negotiate Scotland’s independence in advance, he never did ask that question.

Certainly, Scotland’s position vis-à-vis the EU in 2014 was not a simple one, not least because a member state dividing had never happened before, and that contingency had never been considered. However, if, by the time independence is achieved, the UK is no longer a member state then Scotland would have to re-apply, though while there are obstacles, none appear insoluble. However, Ms Stephenson’s assertion about the position in 2014 is not only wrong but is now irrelevant.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

CHANGING the story to suit the audience, personal attacks on other leaders, denying what they said recently and stubbornly refusing to listen to advice or public opinion.

Last week these were criticisms of Boris Johnson, this week Nicola Sturgeon has adopted them all.

Ms Sturgeon has persistently refused to commit to removing Trident post-independence, yet she slams Jo Swinson for stating that she would use them if necessary ("Swinson is targeted over willingness to use nuclear weapons", The Herald, November 21). Actually, not for saying it so much as for not pretending to agonise for ages over the question.

Mocking Mr Johnson's "die in a ditch" statement when she criticised him for not planning to face her in a debate was easy – thousands of others have done so before her. She has had several other personal digs at him recently, not so much mocking him as emulating his tactics.

Then there is the outrageous claim that, having used Brexit as the sole reason for another independence referendum since 2016, it suddenly doesn't really matter if we stay or if we go.

Perhaps the realisation that Scottish independence would mean a hard exit from the EU anyway has finally sunk in.

When it comes to "one party, one leader" it is scarcely possible to tell the difference between Mr Johnson and Ms Sturgeon. Both have had their eyes set on achieving power and political goals since they were young, both have used whatever opportunities presented themselves and both have failed to listen to other voices within their respective parties.

Mr Johnson has no time for the Remain or the "soft Brexit" factions within the Conservatives, being quite happy to alienate them if necessary.

Ms Sturgeon has never allowed cabinet decision-making to cloud the management of the SNP or the tactics and strategies used. With her husband she has made decisions that look as if they may have been motivated more by her own ambitions than the party's.

Why else, as she struggles to retain power, would she be pushing for indyref2to happen right in the middle of Brexit, when uncertainty is at its highest and assessing consequences is almost impossible?

As the election approaches it seem that Ms Sturgeon is intent on morphing into a Boris Johnson clone, perhaps with better table manners.

Michael Kent, Giffnock.

AFTER watching our prospective prime ministers during their televised debate ("Corbyn and PM trade blows over Indyref2 in first debate", The Herald, November 21) I started thinking about what qualities were needed to make a good leader.

One who could show resilience in times of adversity and in times of significant hardship, carrying the population with them as they did so, leading from the front, making strong uncompromising clear and well-thought-out decisions on strategy, to be deployed to ensure a successful outcome for the nation as a whole, thus leading us all to the sunny uplands promised to us by our Brexit-supporting politicians, would be my choice.

On the basis that Jeremy Corbyn failed to answer (on approximately nine occasions) the fairly simple question about whether he would campaign for or against Brexit and that he thought that it would be best to ask the nation (and not forgetting Uncle Tom Cobley), what they thought about the future Brexit strategy of the UK I decided that as a leader Mr Corbyn didn't quite fit the job specification.

The only leadership option left was Boris Johnson. I found myself trying to compare Mr Johnson to leaders of the past in whose company I felt that my choice of leader should feel at ease. Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln, Luther King jnr, Washington, Roosevelt, Bonaparte, Guevara, Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, Montgomery, MacArthur, Patton, Zhukov, all great leaders in their own right and in whose company my preferred leader could comfortably sit.

Regrettably despite my best efforts I was unable to identify any such leadership qualities in Mr Johnson although I could not, after the performance of Mr Johnson during the debate, help myself from comparing him to a certain Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky, more commonly known as Krusty the Clown in the Simpsons.

John S Milligan, Kilmarnock.

IS "Get Brexit done" the new "Strong and stable government "?

Graeme Gillespie, Torrance.

IF the General Election results in a hung parliament, Jo Swinson, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, may have an influence on government policy and legislation. It is worth looking at how she has voted in the past.

She almost always voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits. She consistently voted for ending financial support for some 16-18-year-olds in training and further education. She generally voted for reducing central government funding of local government and she voted to support the provision of private services in the NHS.

She also voted against greater regulation of fracking.

Some of the above doesn't directly affect Scotland. But they illustrate that what people do is more important than what they say.

Tricia Grey, Lochgilphead.

I SEE Nicola Sturgeon has been discussing Brexit with a five-year-old girl on the campaign trail according to her Twitter feed.

If only the young lady had discussed the GERS report, basic economics and democracy with the First Minister, just to give Ms Sturgeon a basic understanding of the concepts.

David Bone, Girvan.

WHY does every candidate across the parties refer to cash sums as being in “real terms”?

Are there “unreal terms” being hidden from us?

Gordon Casely, Crathes.

Read more: Debate showed the dire quality of our leaders