Letters: Why should I take advice from someone who detests me?

The truth is I am a floating voter, too often forced in recent years to vote for the least worst candidate.

Ms Scott might have heard Nicola Sturgeon’s conference speech in which she urged her followers to reach out to those not yet convinced about the case for independence. Personally, I find myself rather reluctant to take life advice from someone who appears to “detest” me and all I stand for.
Keith Howell, West Linton

The hypocrisy of the SNP

ADAM Tomkins ("The nationalists lose whatever the courts decide", The Herald, October 12) poses the question: "Why have the nationalists brought the case (for a repeat referendum) to the Supreme Court?". The most obvious answer would seem to be their penchant for objection to the result of a democratic referendum, with demands for repeats of the process until the outcome is to their liking.

Since the result of the 2014 referendum, the SNP has acted just like Donald Trump and his MAGA fanatics, in refusing to accept the wish of the majority of voters. Its claims to be "fighting for democracy" are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Anent those who applaud Nicola Sturgeon's professed detestation of the Tories, have they asked if she approved of the purchase by her parents of their council house, thanks to Margaret Thatcher? The SNP Government subsequently terminated the "right to buy" for Scottish council tenants and one assumes her admirers applaud such hypocrisy.
Michael Clayton, Paisley

• I HAVE tried to argue for some years that a new independence referendum is the only way to end Scotland’s constitutional impasse. Adam Tomkins ("The nationalists lose whatever the court decides", The Herald, October 12) writes that the only losers from the Supreme Court hearing will be the “nationalists”.

Mr Tomkins appears to think continued (colonial?) suppression of Scotland’s elected voice will somehow end well, and alternatives to independence just do not exist. Scotland is refused its “right of self-determination”. Federalism would not work because of England's size and indifference. Con-federalism might but at a time when Ireland hosts a substantial conference on reunification, Labour Wales sets up a constitutional commission (to include independence) and half of Scotland supports secession, the UK’s political leaders cannot envisage anything other than Westminster 17th century “sovereignty”. This as the UK continues its decades long-economic decline, delayed by Scottish oil and gas, and now by our renewables. Is that why we don’t get a say?
GR Weir, Ochiltree

• I WAS thinking about the changing circumstances that would affect how people would vote in an election.

If any political party's performance in power, in the UK or Scotland or in a particular council, threatened the welfare of its constituents it should expect to be replaced. Election results don't last a generation, why should referendum results? Times change.
Allan McDougall, Neilston

Where are we moving to?

AT the Conservative conference recently, the slogan displayed prominently throughout was “Getting Britain Moving”.

Unfortunately, they forgot to mention in which direction they were planning to move Britain. It is now becoming clearer by the day.
Nigel Dewar Gibb, Glasgow

Why not follow King's example?

KING Charles has deemed that drastic reductions be made in the budget for his coronation next year ("New king will be crowned on May 6 next year", The Herald, October 12).

Would that the SNP/Green administration at present presiding over our affairs in Scotland had the same respect for taxpayer money in times of national belt-tightening. I do not see the nationalist budget for new pretend embassies or the jaunts overseas by the various entourages sent by the SNP, or the £20 million referendum fund, touched.

Our taxes being spent uselessly on SNP pomp and ceremony does not seem to bother them in the slightest.
Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

One rule for them, another for us

IN August, in the midst of a prolonged, tedious and utterly undemocratic contest to determine which of the latest list of nakedly ambitious Conservative wannabe prime ministers would inherit the keys to 10 Downing Street, the then-candidate and now-incumbent Liz Truss was revealed in a leaked audio recording to be of the view that “British workers needed more graft”, which may or may not be the case, but, either way, this typically Tory trope exposes in plain sight the UK’s most deeply ingrained socio-economic fault line, a microcosm of an inherent "Them and Us" rift between capital and labour that dates back even before the industrial revolution, its origins firmly rooted in a feudal system of governance which the country has never fully addressed, let alone rectified.

In essence, and supported to the hilt by the new PM’s pick as Business Secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a disturbing throw-back to the days of imperious, all-powerful mill and mine owners, Ms Truss is clearly laying the blame for the UK’s historically sluggish productivity at the door of decent, honest, hard-working British workers who, they claim, choose not to put their individual and collective shoulders to the UK’s economic wheel, which, I would repeat, may or may not be true.

But, it is a matter of fact that, while modern, dynamic economies such as Germany, Sweden, France and 12 other EU states all have legal requirements for worker representation on company boards, the UK, along with countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta still ostensibly operates an archaic 21st century version of feudalism, workers deemed, at best, to be a necessary evil, an easily disposable asset, their sole purpose, to put body and soul into enriching Conservative-leaning business owners.

And the absurdity of industrial relations in the UK in 2022 is surely highlighted by the fact that Ms Truss’s prime ministerial predecessor Boris Johnson is entitled to an annual stipend – paid for out of the public purse – of £115,000 towards the cost of his private office, so-called Public Duty Costs, almost four times the average UK annual salary of £31,000, and for life, or for as long as he continues to undertake those unspecified "public duties" ("Boris Johnson could claim former Prime Minister allowance of up to £115,000 a year", heraldscotland, September 6).

Given that this is a man who was in effect sacked for gross misconduct, prosecuted by the police for breaches of Covid-19 restrictions he himself imposed on the rest of the nation, and remains under active investigation by a Parliamentary Standards Committee accused of lying to Parliament, is it little wonder that British workers may – consciously or subliminally – hold back a bit on grafting on the country’s behalf when there is patently one rule for them and an entirely different – and beneficial – set of rules applicable to the UK’s governing "elite?"
Mike Wilson, Longniddry

Visa plan brings problems

THE hospitality industry, particularly in rural Scotland, is suffering from a labour shortage. I cannot see how the relaxation of visa restrictions alone will resolve this problem, as available local labour doesn't wish to accept the low wages on offer, and most of the jobs will be of a seasonal nature ("Brexit cited as tourism chief calls for change to immigration rules", The Herald, October 11).

There is also a long-standing problem with affordable housing, forcing the local youngsters coming on to the labour market without a stable job, or base to work from, to leave the area. Where are those visa applicants going to stay, and what infrastructure is there to keep them long-term if we cannot even retain those already living there and ready to fly the family nest?
George Dale, Beith

Read more letters: I once was proud of the Tories. How could I possibly be now?

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.