WALES (for its “firebreak”), Scotland and Northern Ireland asked for full furlough support in the event of viral restrictions becoming necessary. All were refused. England then announced both a lockdown and an extension of furlough to cover it. The easiest way to understand this, is to regard the Government at Westminster as the Government of England. Because in reality it is. This is where Mark Smith ("Hating PM isn’t a good enough reason to back independence", The Herald, November 2) needs to ask some questions. What is the point of a “Union” where only one participant has all the power required to function in a modern democracy?

This is the main reason for unionist sentiment to be on the wane in Scotland, not dislike of figures like Boris Johnson, or Theresa May or David Cameron. It is the perception of powerlessness Scots feel over Brexit, fiscal and economic choice, even things like the poor return Scotland gets for its BBC licence fee. This, while Mr Cameron’s English Votes for English Laws are being extended into English Votes for Scottish Laws, via the Internal Market Bill.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

I THOUGHT that Mark Smith’s contribution was very poignant. It seems self-evident that dislike and even hatred of the incumbent of 10 Downing Street is no reason whatsoever for Scotland to vote for independence. Yes, he is a bumbling, blustering individual with a posh accent who appears to be everything that down to earth Scots dislike. However, surely the biggest decision in our memory must be based on more balanced and supportable reasons.

Personally I have for a long time thought that the independence argument would be advanced quicker if the SNP were not front and centre of everything political in Scotland.

This may seem a silly argument but there has been no balance in Scottish politics for a long time, all we have had are polarised views which become more and more entrenched. Reasonable discussion on the subject seems to be of no interest to anyone.

W MacIntyre, East Kilbride.

MARK Smith's assertion that hatred of Boris Johnson is a major factor in the increased support for Scottish independence is a totally unsupported assertion and is typical of Mark Smith's "analytical" process in which he starts with a conclusion and scratches around for arguments to support it. While the personal qualities of individual politicians plays no part in my own support for independence, I would concede that admiration for Nicola Sturgeon is probably winning over some doubters at the moment.

Mr Johnson may be regarded with indifference or bewilderment by independence supporters but I have never heard anyone express sentiments that come anywhere close to hatred. He was installed in Downing Street by the Tories to get them elected in 2019 and is unlikely to survive to lead them into the next General Election. He is very clearly under the thumb of the Steve Baker and Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of his party and will be unceremoniously thrown under a bus when his usefulness finishes.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

WATCHING the manoeuvrings by Nicola Sturgeon is like watching a game of chess. She always tries to be five steps ahead in the game but she finds herself now to be in Zugzwang. She has put herself into a position where no matter how she moves her position will worsen.

On Friday she told us that there is a significant slowing in the rate of increase in cases and spoke of "encouraging signs". Yet we now hear that with England receiving furlough funds, she is considering a full lockdown. How can we in a matter of two days go from such a cautiously optimistic outlook to the threat of a full lockdown?

Which of these statements are we to believe? What justification is there for areas in Tier 1 being put into full lockdown?

For once she made her announcement before Boris Johnson and she did not predict his move. That would be stalemate.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

THERE is always something surreal about hearing Nicola Sturgeon or Kate Forbes complaining about not getting enough money from HM Treasury. These are the people who tell us that Scotland would be better off outside the UK, but who routinely demonstrate that, especially in a crisis, such a claim simply is not true. How on earth would the Scottish administration have supported businesses and individuals throughout this crisis without the support of the Treasury in London?

Yet at the very same time, this SNP administration has grandiose plans to open new Scottish quasi-embassies in foreign capitals, in an attempt to foster its "independent" identity. Where will Ms Sturgeon find the money for this kind of venture? If cash is available for activity that encroaches on reserved powers, why is it not available for mitigation of the effects of Covid?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

IAN Forbes (Letters, October 31) refers to the SNP and its independence project, but he should bear in mind that the vast majority of those who seek independence for Scotland are, like me, not SNP members and that most of the time the SNP is coming along behind the movement.

The project, as he calls it, does not belong to the SNP. Neither do we regard independence as some panacea by which Scotland’s problems will disappear. Instead, independence will involve much hard work to achieve a change in direction, but at least we will be setting the parameters here in Scotland as we establish a country with the kind of social values that can be supported by those who choose to live here.

John C Hutchison, Fort William.

MARTIN Williams cites an 11 per cent fall in fire brigade staff from 2012-20 ("Britain faces a ‘roll of the dice’ during a crisis, warn firefighters", The Herald, November 2), not making it clear this is a UK-wide figure. The actual drop in Scotland was four per cent. Considering there were 31% fewer fires and 29% fewer deaths from fire in Scotland over the same period, a four per cent staff reduction doesn’t sound so alarming.

Mr Williams references a "post-Grenfell building safety crisis", yet doesn’t mention Scottish Building Regulations Technical Standards have for two decades required cavity fire barriers to prevent the spread of fire in building cavities. These standards are expensive to achieve. Perhaps the reason England did not follow Scotland’s lead is due to the influence of property developers and big construction firms on the Tory Government. Had England had the same standards as Scotland, the Grenfell Tower fire would not have spread.

Finally, he should note that fire safety audits in Scotland are nearly twice as common per head of population as in England.

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh EH10.