THE latest statements from the unelected and publicly unaccountable special advisor Dominic Cumming ("PM’S key adviser Dominic Cummings posts job advert for civil service ‘weirdos’", The Herald, January 3) are another example of how the Conservative Government is moving speedily towards creating a dictatorship.

The first step was the attack on the BBC followed by the justiciary for daring to have a different view from the Tories and to challenge what they were saying. Now we are set for an explosion in “special advisors” not accountable through the Civil Service or Parliament with a mandate to radically change what is done and how. They can of course just walk away after chaos reigns with only Boris Johnson being held accountable through the ballot box, presuming of course that we don’t have fixed elections in the style of Vladimir Putin.

Mr Johnson made great play of the dangers of a Corbyn dictatorship but already has cut out Parliament from any final decision-making on the deal, or otherwise, with the EU and the ditching of workers' rights from the new legislation in Parliament.

It is now clear that the electoral system needs radical reform to stop the potential for such majorities in the future, though both Labour and Tories are so wedded to the present system that a new political movement will be needed to create such change. In the meantime the very people who put Mr Johnson in power with promises of changing their poor circumstances will be the first to suffer with reduced employment rights, increases in zero-hour contracts and a benefit system that punishes the vulnerable and the working poor, a health service with additional budgets going to American drugs companies and a shortage of personnel because the UK is not and will not be welcoming to immigrants.

Bill Eadie, Giffnock.

MAY I suggest that if Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, is really serious about urging "weirdos"’ to apply to join the civil service, then all he has to do is to look in the mirror.

Sheila Duffy, Glasgow G12.

ALAN Fitzpatrick (Letters, January 3) asks if I support his proposition of a two-thirds majority requirement in a subsequent independence referendum.

That it is SNP practice with its own constitution, is though less telling than that since 1975 there have been six referenda in Scotland on “significant” matters – the EU, the voting system, and devolution/ independence. Most have been determined in the traditional manner of "most votes wins".

The exception was 1979 when despite a majority in favour of a Scottish Assembly, the vote failed as fewer than 40 per cent of registered electors voted in favour. Why is it thought right to tamper with the voting system on matters to do with Scotland, but not otherwise? Does Mr Fitzpatrick approve of leaving the EU on a four per cent win by Leave?

Is there not an onus on him to justify his proposal more systematically than “it’s SNP practice”, an organisation I would have thought Mr Fitzpatrick disapproved of?

Mr Fitzpatrick claims to be confident of a repeat of 2014. So, why does he want to change the rules?

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

IN response to Richard Richardson’s forensic analysis (Letters, January 2) of my generalisations about the Scottish economy (Letters, December 31) I could, as others with more specific experience in this field would, pick the GERS figures to bits but the exercise would be pointless as his mind seems made up, as some would say are most of the GERS figures.

Mr Richardson is obviously rightly concerned that Scottish independence could be a case of “out of the frying pan and into the fire”. He worries that a future Scotland couldn’t balance the books and that at present we spend more than we earn. I wonder why then he is happy to support the Union when that is exactly the current fiscal position under the stewardship of Westminster. The UK Government has run in deficit for years, markedly so over the last decade, the accumulated national debt now stands at £1.8 trillion, approximately 90 per cent of UK GDP; this despite the last decade of austerity which has seen the average wage fail to return to pre-2008 levels. We now have a Westminster Tory Government that has promised to reverse its deliberate austerity policies and instead to increase public spending dramatically while cutting income tax; where, I ask, will the funds for this come from other than by borrowing and further increasing the national debt? Scottish debt bad, UK debt good?

Information and statistics can at times be equated with damn lies, North Sea oil is a prime example where the gloomy forecast of the demise of the sector at the time of the independence referendum suddenly became brighter immediately after the vote. Fuel was the UK's single largest export in 2018, where does most of that come from? Would that be Scottish oil? Whisky is the UK's second greatest single export yet as far as the books are concerned it’s exported from the UK not Scotland. As regards sterling, it is the currency of all the countries in the Union and there is no reason why an independent Scotland could not continue to use sterling as its currency for a long as it felt the need.

My final point would be that to use the current performance of the SNP administration as a yardstick for life in a future Scotland is akin to saying that the UK currently functions exactly as Harold Wilson had it planned. One never knows, Scottish Labour could suddenly discover which side of its bread the butter is on.

David J Crawford, Glasgow G12.

IF First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is deliberately avoiding key questions (Letters, December 27) she has shining exemplars such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Uncle Torn Cobley. It is now a systemic corruption in much of world politics and is accepted, admired as clever evasion.

If I were asked my opinion of endemic political dishonesty and how I would contribute to putting a stop to it I would feel obliged to reply as follows: "I'm very glad you asked me that question because I am...that is... people all up and down this proud country of ours are absolutely sick and tired of lies and we are...we are resolved what we say is down with waffle. Everyone is fed up to the back...um...you know – and we pledge, Vow even, to continue to answer directly. Like right now. I hope that answers your question."

Perhaps Unionist writers might stop obsessing about Ms Sturgeon's obsession and obsess about the utterly monstrous liars, evaders and murderers worldwide.

Donald M Manson, Prestwick.

WHAT an excellent article by Kirsty Hughes of the Scottish Centre on European Relations ("Scotland needs to act now to cement its Euro credentials", The Herald, January 2). I use the word excellent advisedly rather than the much-abused "fantastic" as Kirsty's vision is no fantasy; it is a well-considered view of the required direction of travel for all Scots who, like me, consider themselves to be Scottish first, European second and British third – if at all.

We need to identify common aims and objectives and strengthen fellowship with our European friends to keep one foot firmly located within the EU family of nations and facilitate an early return to EU membership. The alternative of becoming stranded in an isolated outpost of the United States does not bear thinking about.

Read more: Letters: Salmond and Sturgeon have torn the nation apart

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

MARK Smith has suggested that leaving the UK will be harder than the UK leaving the EU ("Could you answer these four questions, First Minister?", The Herald, December 23). Specifically, he cited the Anglo-Scottish border and striking a trade deal with the UK as problems.

While border problems and trade deals have indeed been major stumbling blocks in negotiating Brexit, this was due to very particular circumstances. Unlike the Anglo-Scottish border, the Irish border is a border of partition, created against the wishes of the majority of the population of the island of Ireland in 1921. The Irish border effectively trapped 35 per cent of the population of the newly-created Northern Ireland in the "wrong" country. Cue The Troubles, which were only resolved after the Good Friday Agreement was signed between the UK and Ireland, with assistance from the United States and whose viability is significantly threatened by Brexit. By contrast the Anglo-Scottish border, at more than 400 years old, is the oldest existing border in the world. As far as I'm aware nobody is trapped on the wrong side. Other practical aspects include its length (95 miles as opposed to more than 300 miles) and number of crossing points (30 compared to 209). When evaluating the possibility of a hard border between England and Scotland, it's also important to factor in the very real prospect, due to Brexit, of a hard border with 27 countries with which Scotland currently has no restrictions.

The difficulty of striking a trade deal between the UK and the EU has largely been a result of disagreement within the UK about the nature of Brexit. Options have ranged from a Farage-style so-called "clean Brexit" to a much closer relationship (staying in the Single Market and Customs Union) and various options in between. It is this internal conflict of opinion which has in turn torn the Tory and Labour parties to pieces and ultimately, the UK. By contrast I would anticipate that an independent Scotland would simply adopt whatever trade deal the EU eventually agrees with the UK. One advantage to Scotland of such a deal is that Scotland will quickly be seen as an attractive bridgehead between Greater England and European markets.

A fifth question that Mr Smith might have asked therefore, though not to the First Minister, is what steps will the UK Government take to ensure that Scotland's economy thrives in a post Brexit UK?

Philip Maughan, Portree.