I was very disappointed at your coverage of the All Under One Banner march in Glasgow last Saturday (Thousands join rally calling for indyref2, May 5). I am not a member of any political party and was so impressed at the wide cross section of people attending and their good humour and determination. Apparently, it was the largest demonstration in Glasgow for nearly 30 years yet your article focused on the minute counter-demo by less than 50 people. Your photograph showed nearly as many Union Jacks as Saltires, although there were at least 1,000 times more people marching for independence, and the minor confrontation lasting less than five minutes for marchers in no way marred the event. Surely the Sunday Herald can do better than this.

Tim Rhead


When I was on the Independence March and we passed the group of Unionist supporters at the foot of Union Street, I thought that there would be some elements of our media, who would give emphasis to that group out of proportion to the size of their presence.

They were a group of about two dozen people waving Union Jacks in a single file. Later beside the Clyde there was a group of about six young men, who looked as if they had just come out of the pub, waving one Union Jack. They were unpleasant and taunting us. Fortunately two policemen were between them and us.

Yes, there was a unionist presence, and quite right too. They should be able to voice their opposition to our views. But your front page photo has given equal weighting to the Saltire and the Union Jack flags. I feel that this would give the impression that there were as many supporters of the Union as those against it. It is not until page four that you give figures to explain how many people were on the march.

The article on page four really only focuses on the nasty incidents during the march. Where is a summary of the speeches from Tommy Shephard or the ex-ambassador, whose name I did not catch? Where is there a description of the group who organised yesterday, or some mention of the various groups who had a stall on Glasgow Green, e.g. CND, Navy Not Nuclear and Common Weal?

However I am really disappointed that the Sunday Herald has chosen to give such emphasis to this Unionist presence. It was minuscule compared to the thousands of independence supporters. Their presence was the only unpleasant feature of a cheerful and positive crowd of people of all ages and all backgrounds who took part in a call for independence for Scotland.

I hope you choose to cover the next march for independence in a more realistic way, rather than highlight the negative out of all proportion to the positive.

June Cocksedge


Although I must congratulate yourselves for being the only newspaper in Scotland to put the March for independence on the front page, I feel that the choice for the picture and comment didn't represent the true spirit of the event.

I take your newspaper as a important source of a impartial information and I would like it to continue to be just that.

Pedro Manzoni


READ MORE: An open letter from the editor of the Sunday Herald to readers upset by last week's front page


I read your article (Race row engulfs Labour, May 6) with Matt Kerr and Asim Khan vying to be the candidate for the Glasgow South West constituency with interest. However it had a glaring omission. The article rightly points out that there had been a swing of 20% to Labour at last year’s general election with Labour losing by only 60 votes, it failed to mention that the Labour candidate was Matt Kerr. Also that he is a long standing councillor for Craigton in the heart of the constituency, who has consistently being re-elected by voters in that area.

Bob Thomson



Some urge the First Minister to promote the cause of a second EU referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal (‘Sturgeon told: put new EU vote before independence’, May 6), while others from SNP deputy leader candidates through to tens of thousands marching the streets of Glasgow would prefer an early commitment to indyref2.

Yet a further vote on the terms of a Brexit deal would incentivise EU negotiators to deliver the worst possible deal in the hope of reversing the whole process, which no doubt is what some promoting the idea have in mind.

As for the prospect of an early indyref2, there is no reason for the UK government to agree to that before the eventual outcome of Brexit is played out, which points to after the 2021 Holyrood election. Unless of course the Scottish government contemplates going down the illegal referendum route as in Catalonia, with the majority of voters staying at home. That might seem rather pointless, but could have its attractions amongst those who place political theatre above the real interests of the country at large.

Keith Howell

West Linton

The chances of Nicola Sturgeon joining calls for any kind of second vote on the UK leaving the EU are somewhere between slim and none.

The nationalist leader's interest in the EU extends as far as attempting to use it as a lever for another Scottish independence referendum - and no further. Let's not forget in 2014 the SNP establishment would have taken us out of the EU, with negligible chance of joining for many years - and, with Scotland's excessive debt levels, those prospects are no different now.

Indeed, the course Downing St appears to be following - exiting the Customs Union - is precisely what the divisive Ms Sturgeon seeks - so why support another democratic canvassing of opinion? Brexit is her most favoured indyref2 trigger du jour so, as far as she's concerned, the harder the better.

That Theresa May will undoubtedly continue her 'now is not the time' mantra until after the next Holyrood election in 2021 is an inconvenient truth, of which Ms Sturgeon is well aware - any imminent indyref2 demand will be swiftly dismissed. She already knows she'll have to satisfy herself with a scab of a grievance to pick at until the 2021 election.

Then, if the nationalists achieve a Holyrood majority, and host and manage to win a further referendum in say 2023, it's likely, based on pretty consistent opinion polls over the past four years, it would be by a tiny majority, just as in the EU referendum. Surely Ms Sturgeon is reticent to join calls for a fresh vote to revisit Brexit, for fear of establishing a precedent that could one day be invoked in Scotland?

Martin Redfern


Another week, another lecture to the profligate and ungrateful Scots from the indomitable tandem act unionists Martin Redfern and Keith Howell (Letters May 6). Once again we are told to know our place and accept the supreme wisdom and charitable generosity of the UK state. We are also told that to contend that devolution is under threat is “bizarre” and “beyond risible”. The fact that the threat is considered to be real by a whole collection of commentators, peers, ex-politicians of all political stripes and the entire Scottish parliament with the exception of the Tories, carries no weight with Messrs Redfern and Howell. We are left with the unmistakeable impression that the diminution of devolution would be of secondary importance so long as the existence of the Union remained sacrosanct.

Interestingly, both these gentleman appeared at one time to have voted to remain in the EU, but here again the preservation of the Union transcends all and even a disastrous Brexit will not elicit any criticism of the UK state from them. Martin Redfern then tries to put an acceptable face on Brexit by saying that “a total of 134 new powers will come to Holyrood for the first time”. With 111 we currently have, including the 24 where there is contention, that gives us 245 devolved powers. A fact that seems to have bypassed politicians, the media and the general public. And they used to say you couldn’t make it up.

Douglas Turner



Let us make turning our backs to Donald Trump a symbol of our protest; a symbol of our not giving him any attention because, like the “bad” boy in school, that is what he thrives on. What energises him is to get a reaction particularly in tearing up all the positive attainments that human beings have managed recently, with great difficulty so let our protest can be to simply ignore him and as a symbol; of that by turning our backs to him if we are in his vicinity.

Martin McCrae



In response to David Stubley, (Letters, May 6), I did not rant; if I had ranted, he would know about it. The heading given to his letter, "Vegans need to calm down", seems rather inappropriate - it is David Stubley who needs to calm down, not me. He appears to be in favour of people going vegan, if it is for health reasons, but not if it is for ethical reasons. Indeed, he seems to hate ethical vegans and to hold them in contempt. He doesn't explain why he is so opposed to those who have compassion for animals; it seems to be a concept that is totally alien to him.

Sandra Busell