Any doubt as to the litany of domestic policy failures inflicted on the Scottish people should have disappeared after reading just the first few pages of The Herald this week. It is utterly shameful that the long list of failures is being added to with the scrapping of the date promised for the dualling of the dangerous A9 road.

This a huge betrayal of those living in the Highlands and the many other users of this road. Further, for the transport minister Jenny Gilruth to include the disastrous war in Ukraine as part of the reason is a disgrace. The newspaper this week includes the likely failure of a bottle return deposit scheme which could create unlawful trade barriers, the call by an SNP group for the ill-thought-out and uncosted National Care Service to be paused, the complete shambles that is the Gender Recognition Reform Bill rounded off by SNP MPs and MSPs highlighting the ridiculous idea of a “de facto” referendum at the next election.

If this ever-growing list of policy failures was not so deadly serious, it would be almost laughable. The Scottish voters must be reminded of the ineffectiveness of this SNP administration from now right through to the next election.
Richard Allison, Edinburgh

Minister for lack of transport?

The influence of the Greens on the SNP seems total. The latest manifestation is in the non-commitment by the Scottish Government to even give any indication as to when the next part of the A9 dual carriageway upgrade will be started.

The SNP transport minister, Jenny Gilruth, is already famous for suggesting Scottish football fans should walk when the train strikes were on. Now it appears she is not terribly interested in road safety for motorists either. Given that the ferry situation is still dire and unlikely to change any time soon and the trains are not doing too well either, should Ms Gilruth's job title not be amended to “minister for lack of transport"? That would please the Greens even more.
Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

SNP tunnel vision is to blame

Jenny Gilruth said the lack of progress on the upgrade of the A9 is down to Brexit, the pandemic, and the Ukraine war. The manifesto pledge to dual the A9 was made in 2007, long before any of those three convenient excuses took place. The reasons for the delays on the work is more down to the SNP’s tunnel vision and the use of all available funds on independence, and the unhealthy alliance with the Greens. At least Jenny didn’t blame Westminster and the Tories this time.
Ian Balloch, Grangemouth

Achievements, not stupidity

Alexander McKay wonders (again) why so many of the voting public could have been so "blindly stupid" to elect what he terms "obsessed nationalists", and informs us that he predicted what the result would be "from the moment they were elected". I wonder if that was his prediction the first time the SNP was elected to office, or the second time, or the third time, or the fourth time.

Given his talent for predictions, Mr McKay must surely have predicted the Baby Box, the Scottish Child Payment, 1,000 schools built or upgraded, 100,000 affordable homes delivered with around 70% of them for social rent, the Queensferry Crossing and the Borders Railway delivered and over two million people in Scotland benefitting from free bus travel. Bridge tolls scrapped, prescription charges scrapped, no university tuition fees for Scottish students and free personal care for all who need it, regardless of age.

And these are just some of the SNP's achievements in government. So perhaps after all the electorate are not as "blindly stupid" as Mr McKay insultingly suggests. 
Ruth Marr, Stirling

A rational and safe approach

On Monday February 6, the First Minister, in reference to trans persons and single-sex spaces, emphasised strongly the role of the individual. She noted that "in any group in society there will be individuals who do wrong, who commit crimes and abuse the rights that the entire group enjoy". Now, that of course is true.

But she then said, "That will be the case in every group in society, but there is no other group where we accept that the actions of an individual somehow forms a justification for taking away rights from the whole group or not according rights to that group that make their life easier."

Now, that of course is blatantly untrue, for only a small percentage of biological men will commit sexual assaults (emotional, verbal, and physical) or rape. These are individuals in the 'male group' of our society. Precisely because of these individuals' actions, even though they are a very small minority, the 'whole group' of males have been excluded from safe single-sex spaces that are reserved for women.

Until recently these safe spaces were legally protected for women only, and all men's 'rights' to these spaces were denied ... and rightly so. None of us have questioned this 'denial of our rights', as we recognise it is a valid and necessary restriction of our 'rights' for the sake of the safety of 50% of our population.

So, Ms Sturgeon, you have called for a 'rational approach' to this whole issue. Please would you and your followers take a step back and look rationally, as you request others to do, and open your mind to the completely irrational approach that is being espoused in relation to encouraging biological men to have 'easy' access to spaces previously reserved for biological women. In this case, the 'whole group' do need to have their 'rights' of access restricted/denied ... that is the rational and only safe approach.
Alasdair H B Fyfe, Carmunnock

Violence by teachers is not the answer

Having been both a pupil and a teacher when corporal punishment in schools was allowed, I disagree strongly with Mr Lloyd (Letters, February 7) that it should again be. Scotland would be almost unique in the Western World; even in the USA, only 10 states allow it (but men cannot hit girls or women boys).  

Few, if any, teachers would be willing to administer such punishment. They could not be obliged to do so and would risk legal action, parental criticism and/or online abuse. Nor would most pupils be willing to accept it. There is no other occupation whose members are authorised to inflict violence. Why should teachers be?

Just how does Mr Lloyd think it could work? Can one imagine hitting a 17 year old? Would there be special non-teacher staff to administer corporal punishment anonymously?

The present school system is entirely unsuited to current societal and individual needs. The focus on academic subjects does not serve many pupils' needs, neither does trying to eliminate "attainment gaps". To rate school performance by the percentage of pupils gaining three Highers indicates a very narrow idea of education.

Learning is not very effective when pupils cannot choose what they wish to learn and from whom, while teachers are not free to decide what they want to teach and to which pupils. Yet that is often the case. Where, when, how and by whom a subject is taught matters more than what it covers.   

There would be no need for "discipline" if pupils were not forced to study subjects in which they have no interest and aptitude. The assumption that "authority" best knows what they will need is flawed. Past schooling practices seldom prepared pupils for their present lives so there is no reason to assume that current ones will best serve the future needs of most present pupils.

Those who do not behave properly whatever their opportunities should be excluded from classes and kept in isolation on school premises designed for such. That is legal. What they do there should be for them to choose.

If teachers did not have to deal with all the problems mentioned by Mr Lloyd, many more might be attracted to the job and not require higher pay.  
John Munro, Glasgow 

Some negative discrimination?

Rebecca McQuillan's article on the educational credentials of our governing class certainly helps provide an alternative meaning to what is meant by the term Eton Mess. Given the sense of entitlement and privilege inculcated by this educational background, perhaps some negative discrimination here would not go amiss?
Ian Martin, Milngavie

The Herald:

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