THE double standards practised by Ruth Davidson knows no bounds. On Newsnight (October 1) she asked: “Why didn’t [Nicola Sturgeon] sack [Margaret Ferrier] rather than allow her to go and make a grovelling apology?”

Dominic Cummings did not make any kind of apology, grovelling or otherwise, but while Ms Davidson did admit that Mr Cummings had “done some damage” there was no suggestion that he be sacked.

While Douglas Ross resigned from his ministerial post over the Cummings affair, Ruth Davidson could be accused of being fearful of being deprived of her elevation to an unelected position in the House of Lords, from where she need have no fear of being held to account.

John Milne, Uddingston.

I SUPPOSE that it was only to be expected that Dr Gerald Edwards and other correspondents (Letters, October 3) would seize on the Margaret Ferrier incident as a stick with which to beat Nicola Sturgeon, no matter that Ms Sturgeon had condemned Ms Ferrier's appalling behaviour in the strongest possible terms and made it crystal clear that she had urged Ms Ferrier to do the honourable thing and resign as an MP.

In his homily on "moral bankruptcy" I see no mention from Dr Edwards of the moral bankruptcy of the Baroness-to-be who will shortly be winging her way to Westminster where she will take her unelected seat in the undemocratic House of Lords along with all the other peers who need only to turn up in order to claim hundreds of pounds a day of taxpayers' money and enjoy their subsidised dinners washed down by their subsidised champagne. Neither do I see any mention of the moral bankruptcy of the Conservative Government which has astounded governments all over the world as the UK faces legal action due to breaking international law on an agreement signed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain; there's nothing great about that.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

WHAT a contrast between Nicola Sturgeon’s prompt, decisive and unambiguous handling of the Margaret Ferrier fiasco and Boris Johnson’s muddled handling of the Dominic Cummings trip to Barnard Castle. I know the kind of leadership that I would prefer.

Dave Stewart, Glasgow G11.

I SUPPOSE Margaret Ferrier went by train after checking her eyesight and deciding she was unfit to drive.

John Digney, Stirling.

I LOVE the Letters Pages, as much for the subliminal political landscape they reveal as for the facts and humour I often find.

Saturday (October 3) was a great example of the subliminal. From the rather splenetic contributions of Allan Sutherland, Dr Gerald Edwards and Jill Stephenson, to the subtle and gentler Thelma Edwards, the underlying message is a palpable fear that the game is up for the Union.

I am in the same age group, I suspect, as at least two of these contributors, my first political memory being the Suez affair. I have witnessed generations of politicians being "economical with the truth" when it suited them, including such episodes as the Profumo affair, the Belgrano sinking, and more recently Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament, but there have been hundreds more.

It's possible, even probable, that there were things going on that might never see the light of day in the Salmond affair, there might be consequences for individuals (though there usually aren't) but the idea that independence is contingent on one individual or group is wishful thinking. Our Pparliaments are full of politicians, the adjective "politic" can mean "artful or shrewd" or "crafty or unscrupulous" according to my dictionary. Whodathunkit.

John Jamieson, Ayr.

I HAVE to take issue with John McCallum (Letters, October 2). He states that the SNP is a means to an end regarding independence, and that once independence is achieved all Scots will have the chance to elect a government on its winning manifesto.

I find the naivety of this truly astounding. At the moment,we are almost living in a one-party state.

Opinion polls are showing an almost landslide for the SNP. What makes Mr McCallum think that the electorate will rush to vote for Conservatives,Labour or for that matter Liberal Democrat in an independent Scotland ?

If the SNP is successful in its quest for independence, we will most definitely be living in a one party-state.

John Brown, Cumbernauld.

LIKE Derek McClure (Letters, October 1) I am saddened to see the Gaelic language and culture's fall from grace in Scottish hearts and any list of the most iconic emblems of my country.

But he needs to look beyond "people who presumably think of themselves as Scottish" (which is, I presume, a euphemism for "yoon" or "Britnat" and a twisted description of decent, proud, level-headed Scots) for the real culprits.

Gaels' public enemy number one is the SNP and its cynical appropriation of our language, flag, history, and, it is becoming clearer by the day, our institutional probity and scrutiny, for political ends. Currently sitting at number two on the list is Bòrd na Gàidhlig, recently described in this newspaper as "a total disaster" for, among other things, blowing £5 million a year on nobody quite knows what.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

Read more: Events of this week could yet see the end of the line for the SNP