AS Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell has consistently placed Government and party interests before the country he is required to represent. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that, despite continually maintaining that a no- deal Brexit would visit untold damage on Scotland, Mr Mundell abstained from voting against a no-deal scenario on the grounds of self- preservation ("Mundell fends off demands to resign", The Herald, March 14).

Over the last month our Secretary of State has claimed, ludicrously,that Scottish Nationalist MPs had designs on a no-deal Brexit to hasten the path to independence, knowing that a no-deal situation would cause social, political and economic disarray.

Indeed, this was the same SNP MPs who unanimously voted to take no deal off the table permanently, in line with their party policy. In this blatant display of political deception, Mr Mundell has attempted to deflect responsibility for the unprecedented Tory-fashioned bedlam of Brexit onto Scottish Nationalists.

Mr Mundell is a mediocre politician who owes his Cabinet position to a "last man standing" situation but this does not excuse his lack of transparency or political credulity at this most precarious of constitutional times. He has little or no influence at Westminster, lacking any semblance of gravitas but, by his abrogation of responsibility to the people of Scotland, he must now be judged, like many others, as Brexit collateral, even as we plunge into this unprecedented period of political tumult.

He is unfit to represent his unfortunate constituents of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.

Whether Mr Mundell resigns in the coming days or months matters little to our future. He is now a proverbial busted flush and, frankly, an embarrassment to Scotland and its people.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling.

Read more: Mundell forced to defend himself

OVER the last two days (March 13 & 14), while watching live coverage of the Parliamentary debates, the BBC has twice cut away from Ian Blackford when he rose to address the Prime Minister. He barely uttered two words before the switch was made so that viewers could enjoy the further maunderings of Andrew Neil. Once might be regarded as an error; twice in two days looks like a policy.

The twittersphere has been duly enraged but when is the BBC going to be held to account?

RD Murray,

30 Braehead Court, Kilmarnock.

TO me, it’s a storm in a teacup, but for Scottish Tories to complain about being compared to the landowners, lords and nobles who signed the Ragman Rolls is a bit childish ("Russell under fire over ‘Ragman Rolls’ tweet", The Herald, March 14). The Ragman Rolls were a way for Edward of England to claim fealty from Scots, for his invented claim of Lordship over Scotland. Many of these people were French Normans first, and owned estates across the British mainland, so Scottish or English interests were a foreign concept to them. Family interests came first.

Scottish Tories were elected by constituents who voted by a large margin to remain within the EU. Scottish Tories placed their UK party interests above constituency: all Leave proposals, including Theresa May’s, make their constituents poorer than they would have been, according to the Tory Government’s own research. I really see nothing for Scottish Tories to whine about, but if they can deflect constituency attention away from their dismal Westminster voting pattern, then they will see it as a gain for them.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,


I HAVE just read with almost total incredulity the letters (March 14) from serial SNP critic, Jill Stephenson, and Ronald IG Scott. I can’t make up my mind which one is more ridiculous. Jill Stephenson says the SNP leadership is “waging a constant campaign to vilify and discredit the Government”. Personally, I think the Government has been doing an outstanding job of vilifying itself by its shambolic actions in regard to Brexit. Just watch the TV news every night for confirmation. No help needed there from the SNP.

Mr Scott talks about “the real world”, but I wonder what planet he inhabits. After rehashing many of the now largely-discredited Better Together arguments against independence, he moves on to the difficulty of an independent Scotland joining the EU, with particular reference to the Greek economy. Well, as a regular visitor to, and student of, Greece over very many years I see no similarities in the two economies (though the Greeks do seem especially fond of Scottish people). Anyway, Ruth Marr (Letters,. March 14) explained the EU situation extremely well in her letter, so no need for me to go there.

Ian Baillie,

1 Tudhope Crescent, Alexandria.