Letters: Disgraceful Covid figures must halt preparations for indyref2

Bob MacDougall, Kippen.

GIVEN that the policies in relation to Covid-19 are fairly similar north and south of the Border it is somewhat surprising that the UK Government is in receipt of constant criticism whereas criticism of the Scottish Government is mild by comparison. Some would say that this is attributable to the First Minister’s alleged presentational abilities, but surely skilled commentators should be able to identify that the policies are well nigh identical.

There are two possible reasons for this difference. First, the political opposition in Scotland is not strong enough. It is lacking not only in numbers but also in gravitas. This deficiency is aggravated by the fact that SNP MPs and MSPs are ultra-obedient, almost to the point of failing to properly represent their constituents. One certainly would not want to see them emulating the stance of certain Conservative MPs down south, but loyalty to the cause can be taken too far. It does not encourage healthy democracy.

Secondly the Scottish media are tame compared to their counterparts down south. When did you last see Nicola Sturgeon being interrogated and grilled in the way that UK ministers are? Only when she is interviewed down south – sometimes by a Scot.

David SW Williamson, Kelso.

THE attempted character assassination of Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, by Andrew Marr on Sunday, represented a new low for the BBC in terms of professional, objective and impartial political coverage. Following the recent rant against the Scottish Government of Andrew Neil on Politics Live, with similar scurrilously slanted comments (which also were left unchallenged or unqualified by the BBC host) of regular BBC guest Fraser Nelson on last Thursday's Question Time, as well as pejorative remarks by BBC journalists such as Laura Kuenssberg, it has become clear that the BBC’s once-proud worldwide reputation for sound and unbiased news presentation and current affairs analysis has deeply descended into the dark world of morally corrupt reporting inhabited by those unashamedly seeking simple and often misleading, if not dishonest, headlines.

While Andrew Marr avoided customary political questions about the ongoing National Conference of the SNP in doggedly pursuing his list of carefully prepared accusations aimed at undermining her personal integrity, Nicola Sturgeon remained calm and polite even through Marr's repeated efforts to talk over her (which besides being rather rude were also technically unastute on a video link). Charitably corrected on his attempts to conflate different episodes around "revelations" relating to the activities of her predecessor as First Minister, Marr was also kindly advised to examine cumulative coronavirus morbidities and "excess deaths" across the United Kingdom rather than focus on selections of NRS and ONS data over a limited period to compare the "Covid-19 performances" in Scotland and England (a national comparison which the BBC has consistently avoided conducting whenever Scotland’s statistics have generally been considered “better” than England’s, which has been most of the time).

As with comparisons of care home deaths, it has been known for some time, and been the subject of a number of independent reports, that coronavirus deaths in England have been persistently under-reported (deliberately so according to an early Channel 4 report) with coronavirus generally not mentioned on the death certificate unless there was "proof" it was a factor while in Scotland coronavirus is recorded if presumed or suspected to be a factor in a death. Either Andrew Marr was not aware that the presentation of figures he robustly highlighted was akin to comparing apples and oranges (which is not what his publicly-funded high salary would suggest), or he, like some others at the BBC who somewhat disingenuously portray themselves as "Scots", are no longer embarrassed that they seem to have sold their souls for English gold.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

I WATCHED Nicola Sturgeon being interviewed by Andrew Marr on Sunday morning. She indicated that in her view, doing well in the forthcoming Scottish elections would give her a mandate for another independence referendum. However, when questioned by Marr about her appalling record on education and many other areas, she said the people of Scotland would have their say at those same elections.

And that is the problem. If you support independence you must vote for her, even if you would have wished to call her out for her abysmal record in government. Because around half of the country wants independence, so will vote for her no matter what, she's getting away with sheer incompetence.

Scott Macintosh, Killearn.

IT would appear Andrew Marr has at last discovered the reason for Nicola Sturgeon's popularity and apparent rise in support for the SNP. He stated on his show: "It seems to me that there is a gap between presentation, very, very good presentation and the reality. When it comes to coronavirus data, when it comes to education, when it comes to the Alex Salmond issue, there is a gap between how you present yourself, very, very effectively, and what's really been going on in Scotland."

It seems so many people are taken in with her daily bluster but fail to admit that, as a prominent Scottish businessman recently stated about the SNP, "everything they touch is a mess". Ms Sturgeon appeared visibly rattled and uncomfortable at the sort of grilling she should be subjected to more often – well done Mr Marr.

By May, the people of Scotland will have been well reminded of this regime's substantial shortcomings and any talk of a divisive referendum will have gone.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar.

AT a time when we are still struggling with a serious worldwide pandemic, and people in Scotland are still dying from Covid in significant numbers, it is utterly reprehensible that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are devoting time and energy to discussing and planning for a second independence referendum. Lives and livelihoods must come before the personal self-gratifying objectives of these insensitive and crass politicians. They should hang their heads in shame.

Ian Forbes, Glasgow G41.

IRRESPECTIVE of how John Swinney dresses up his £230 million school meal initiative, it is nothing other than a cynical election bribe.

While it is right and proper that the 25 per cent of Scottish children who live in poverty are protected, Mr Swinney’s largesse means the remaining 75% of Scottish primary school children will also enjoy free breakfasts and lunches, meals which one assumes their parents are able to afford.

The illogicality of Mr Swinney's thinking is illustrated by his own primary-school-aged children receiving free meals regardless of his annual £112,000 salary.

If Mr Swinney confined his policy only to children in poverty he would save £170 million, an amount enough to fund almost 5,000 extra teachers or build seven or eight brand new primary schools every year.

Food for thought?

Alasdair Gibbons, Bearsden.

MARK Smith's symbiotic relationship to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP goes on ("Why does Sturgeon keep saying wrong thing on independence?", The Herald, November 30). I would politely point out some things: all political leaders talk up their prospects, few with humility or insight. Better with the polls going with you, than against, I would have thought.

I would guess most people recognise modern independence is as part of a community, but Scotland has no “shared-decision making” (or even consultation) at present, and after the Internal Market Bill, we will have zero autonomy. One person from a minor political party in Scotland, appointed by a UK Government we did not elect, will have more authority in Scotland than Scotland’s elected parliament. How is that fair or equitable, and how can it endure?

Independence would allow us to enjoy the same degree of democratic sovereignty which other self-governing countries enjoy; and overthrow the increasing tyranny of rule by a despot.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

THE one person in the Scottish Government’s most senior ranks who has had no accusatory finger pointed at him in connection with the Salmond judicial review fiasco is John Swinney. So, why is he now the object of parliamentary anger and charged with engaging in a cover-up?

It was not he but the First Minister who gave the pledge that the parliamentary inquiry would “be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request”. When she made that statement did Nicola Sturgeon know that when she came to recuse herself from involvement in what material was to be supplied, she personally was off that self-created hook? A question she should be required to answer in parliament.

But her words were not personal. They were from the head of a Government committing that body to meet all requests from the committee. So, step forward Mr Swinney, the poor sap now taking the heat for not complying with the formal Government commitment given by its head. Perhaps he thinks this is a far, far better thing than any he has ever done, to have his reputation ruined in order to protect his leader, who either did not know what she was doing when making the commitment, or was engaged in an act of pure cynicism.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh EH9.

Read more: Letters: The real separatists are those who are taking us out of Europe