IT really has come to something when the First Minister now feels she is so untouchable that she can bluntly and effusively insult the intelligence of journalists, opposition politicians and the electorate and has the gall to do it at a Covid briefing rather than in the Scottish Parliament ("Tories accuse Sturgeon of ‘Trump-style meltdown’ in vaccine targets storm", The Herald, July 28).

It seems she does not do parliamentary scrutiny these days, perhaps due to the lack of intelligent and legitimate questions that might come before her.

The sheer arrogance of her statement is mind-boggling. She deigns to advise us lesser mortals that “when I communicate, I kind of communicate at a level where I assume a certain level of intelligence on the part of people listening to me ... and I assume a certain ability to attach context and common sense to what I am saying”. Well pardon me, First Minister, for becoming so confused and for lacking the intelligence or common sense to understand the difference in the meaning of the words “given” and “offered”.

The simple and undeniable fact around her statement that “by 26 July, all 40-49-year-olds will have been given second vaccine doses” is that she has failed to deliver that. It is becoming clearer by the day that her arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of anyone and everybody who might legitimately question her supposed achievements or actions will ultimately bring her downfall, if indeed her own party does not turn on her first.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh.

GOVERNMENT BY RHETORIC

I REALLY think Nicola Sturgeon reached a new low in her angry rhetoric in her latest briefing statements.

I watched incredulously as she insulted the intelligence of her opposition because they had the audacity to question her performance on Covid vaccinations. Her standard modus operandi in First Minister's Questions when asked awkward questions is personal attack and ridicule, not facts, and she has carried this into the briefings. She is so used to making statements based on how she wants us to perceive her that she has lost all sense of stating what she will commit to and then standing by it.

It's government by rhetoric not action and she should be ashamed of herself. Scotland deserves so much better.

Bill Adair, Renfrewshire.

DEFINITIONS OFFERED

THE First Minister appears to have great difficulty differentiating between "offered" and "given" when trying to downplay her missed vaccination targets. Perhaps we can simplify the real meanings with examples.

The people of Scotland were "offered" the chance of breaking up the UK in a "once in a lifetime" referendum in 2014; they declined. Since then they have been "given" an unasked-for and endless string of grievances and claims that they did not really mean it when they said no thanks the first time.

Hope that helps.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh.

OIL WAS USED TO SAVE JOBS

I DON'T know how old Leah Gunn Barrett (Letters, July 26) is but I was an economics student at Edinburgh University when North Sea oil came on stream and in 1978 I won a bottle of Moet Chandon in a competition in the Sunday Times Atticus column to write a haiku about North Sea oil policy. My winning entry was "Confucius he say man who spend oil like water end up in the drink".

Which is exactly what happened as the Government used it to plug holes in the rapidly declining industries, especially in Scotland. No oil fund, no big infrastructure and I don't believe an independent Scotland with the likes of the Billy Wolfe and Winnie Ewing at the helm would have done any different in the quest to buy votes. Nor would the UK have given away its rights to 90 per cent of the oil.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

RISE OF CUMMINGS WAS UNDEMOCRATIC

ANDY Maciver apparently admires Dominic Cummings and hopes there will be more like him in government in the future ("Do not judge Cummings too harshly – in the end, he could be good for British politics", The Herald, July 27). I find this disturbing and frankly sinister.

I would point out to Mr Maciver that Mr Cummings was not elected to his position.While he clearly has a particular world view and has been remarkably successful in achieving the aims he believes in, this has all been done from behind the scenes. As far as I am aware, at no time has he stood for public office and so there has been no opportunity for anyone to challenge him on his beliefs.

This is not how a democracy should operate.

Alan Jenkins, Glasgow.

A LESSON IN GRACIOUSNESS

AT last our First Minister appears to have discovered that something of international significance is happening in Tokyo.

Her belated acknowledgement of the Olympian efforts put in by members of the GB team was signalled by her congratulations to Duncan Scott, a home-grown Silver-winning member.

Her passing mention of his Gold-winning teammate stands in stark contrast to Scott’s immediate and fulsome tribute to the Englishman who beat him "by his fingertips". Displaying true Olympic grit through a shroud of disappointment, Scott’s graciousness was exemplary.

I venture to suggest that Nicola Sturgeon and her oft-times sanctimonious colleague Ian Blackford could take a lesson from this in their professed efforts to extend the hand of respect and friendship to our putative "friends and neighbours" south of the Border.

The silence of the SNP on team GB’s efforts is as sad as it is deafening.

(Professor) Douglas Pitt, Newton Mearns.

LEGAL AID NEEDS STRUCTURAL REFORM

FURTHER to your report of claims that the current legal aid system creates a "barrier to justice" (“Lawyers welcome report demanding radical overhaul of Scots legal aid system” , The Herald, July 27), the problem may be structural as well as financial.

The report to which your article refers applies to England rather than Scotland but the problems which it highlights are mirrored in Scotland. Formal legal aid was brought into the Scottish legal system in 1949 when the Law Society of Scotland was created to operate, through a council of elected solicitors and including judicial input, the provision of state-funded legal representation for those who could not afford to pay for it. However successful or otherwise that scheme may have been, I never knew it to be described as a barrier to justice.

Then, from 1986, a new executive government body, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, was created to take over the administration of legal aid, replacing the Law Society Council with the Government’s own executive body. The ensuing reduction of availability of legal aid and the 20 years'-plus freeze of legal aid solicitors’ fees may have signified the priority of economic considerations over access to justice as the driving force of the new body.

The construction and regulation of a legal aid scheme without any effective input from the profession which requires to deliver legally aided representation seems destined to meet with the problems described in your report. Economic factors must play a significant part in the allocation of public funds but it seems likely that, in order to have the prospect of long-term success and stability, any radical overhaul should seek to restore at least some of the former connection between the legal profession itself and the regulation of legally-aided representation.

Michael Sheridan, by Strachur, Argyll.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE FERRIES

BRIAN Wilson criticises MSPs for their failure to hold ministers and Calmac to account for the continuing problems with their ferries (“Every day, every hour, MSPs should be demanding answers on Calmac”, The Herald, July 28), and in particular the damage being caused daily to island constituents and their businesses, not to mention, as he says, the appalling £300 million cost to taxpayers of the two ferries still under construction at the nationalised Ferguson Marine yard with no clear end to that in sight.

I read somewhere that ferries for use on these West Coast routes should be replaced every 15-20 years, as witnessed by the sort of breakdown troubles being experienced with the present fleet. If that is correct, what would be the comparative costs of building tunnels or bridges, as appropriate, as alternatives to some if not all of the current crossings?

Any such comparisons should take into account that bridges or tunnels should not need such frequent replacing, and tunnels at least should not be subject to frequent weather or tide-related closures, so may well present a win-win solution in the long run, if such considerations are ever taken into account by our here-today-gone-tomorrow MSPs.

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

Read more: Tories accuse Nicola Sturgeon of 'Trump-style meltdown'