IT was as predictable as it was depressing to hear the leader of the SNP announce a bill in the Scottish Parliament which is likely to result in another referendum on independence in Scotland ("Independence vote legislation is published", The Herald, May 30).

In its time in office, the SNP has proved that it is no better, and is often worse, than any other set of politicians, at delivering government in Scotland. Here is why:

Under its watch, the NHS is managed in a mediocre manner. The country cannot train, retain or recruit a sufficient number of doctors or nurses to keep the Service working efficiently, effectively and economically.

In education, the country is failing to retain, recruit or train teachers in sufficient numbers. Controversial changes to the curriculum have seen our educational standing plummet. This, along with ineffective measures to deal with pupil indiscipline, has led to claims from professional bodies, that many teachers are disenchanted with their vocation. This impacts on educational delivery and outcomes.

In centralising the police and fire services, the SNP has shown that it is as keen on control freakery, as any other political party. The changes imposed will take decades to normalise, and have seen budgets cut to the bone: this impacts on service delivery to the public.

Whilst the Tory and Liberal Democrat Party set about imposing austerity on the UK, the SNP, in a naked political bid to garner support from the middle class for independence, gave tax breaks in the form of free services and a freeze on council tax. The latter, in particular, did little to alleviate the impact of austerity, as it left councils with even less money to deliver vital services to the most needy in our communities.

But, ultimately, the biggest failure of the SNP has been its failure to deliver independence. Despite an official two and a half year campaign, in which it set the question, and gained the positive advantage, through the use of the word Yes, it still failed to persuade a sufficient number of the franchise to vote for it.

Despite losing this "once in a generation" opportunity, the party had a hiatus of perhaps two to three days, before it started campaigning for another referendum.

And that campaign continues, with never an opportunity missed to extract a perceived slight from any given situation, in order to create an image of a poor, put-down Scotland, which always takes second place to the Union, and for which only the SNP speaks. It might be mediocre at much else; but it is an effective propagandist.

Ultimately, the SNP is unique only in its quest for independence. In all other matters political, it is as decidedly average as the next set of politicians.

Independence is a pipedream; it would be as bad, if not worse than Brexit. Its delivery in Scotland will lead to an unwelcome period of political, social and economic uncertainty, that will have an impact on real lives. Despite the bill introduced today I, for one, will never vote for it.

JS Brennan, Glasgow G44.

SO the SNP favours a second referendum. We now require a straight answer to this question: on what basis does it say that the outcome of a referendum is decisive and final?

Before answering, these points must be addressed. First, we live in a changing world, so any argument that a “material change of circumstances” invalidates it is useless. Circumstances always change. Secondly, the logic that permits a second referendum is incapable of resisting demands for a third. Then where are we?

The real point here is that a referendum is an ad hoc device of questionable status. Unless it is contained within a Referendum Act, a referendum decides nothing. We live in a representative democracy. Decisions are made in parliaments, not on a referendum day.

What is the SNP’s answer to the question?

Tim Bell, Edinburgh.

Read more: Sturgeon insists NHS waiting time plan 'not failing' despite record problems

A PROPOS Ruth Davidson, I was inspired to write a missive initially about her flip-flopping and inconsistency ("Sturgeon warns Tory leadership hopefuls over independence", The Herald, May 30). I thought better of it on realising she’s actually a paragon of consistency. The Tory Euro election leaflet that Nicola Sturgeon was brandishing in your photograph is the same one that came through all of our doors and inveighed against Ms Sturgeon and a further independence referendum. Ms Davidson has since gone on record to back up this unusual European election strategy by now advocating that all of the Tory leadership contenders should swear an oath against accepting any democratic mandate in Scotland to test independence through a referendum. So I say she is consistent.

She consistently absolves the Westminster project of any democratic failing or elitism. She consistently shrugs off her support for Tory policies that might taint her image – particularly on universal credit and austerity. She consistently no-platforms her Tory leadership colleagues whom she believes might taint the Davidson brand of Teflon Tory deniability in Scotland. As a consequence she consistently avoids any real policy offerings when campaigning, having adopted as a default an anti-SNP mantra. And she consistently runs away from the prospect of a Scottish electorate having their own democratic say on whether they desire independence or not, despite them having provided a mandate, again in the Euro elections, by consistently voting in a majority for the SNP.

What can Ms Davidson be afraid of? Surely if she was so consistent she should have the courage of her convictions and advocate the bringing on of the referendum at the earliest opportunity? But then again she is also consistent in advocating for Westminster rule, for supporting Theresa May and her wrecking of the UK’s stability and for naysaying the majority of the Scottish electorate whom she projects as dupes of the SNP. Ms Davidson is also consistent therefore in being in a minority, out of touch and on the wrong side of the Scottish electorate.

David Wallace, Glasgow G14.

ALISON Rowat ("Where stands Scotland on the chance of a Scot in Number 10?", The Herald, May 30) says that every Scot of sound mind can agree that Boris Johnson gives us the pip. Just for her information I doubt that “every” Scot falls into that extremely limited category.

Please don’t lump me in with Ruth Davidson, I take Boris over her anytime.

Michael Watson, Glasgow G73.

PERHAPS Boris Johnson's current difficulties with financial predictions during a political campaign ("Johnson’s EU claims come back to haunt bid for premiership", The Herald, May 30) will persuade the SNP to be scrupulous about such predictions in future. I have in mind specifically SNP plans to replace subsidies from rUK, including payments under the Barnett formula, such payments referred to by some as equalisation payments with the term subsidy eschewed; but Barnett ceases on independence and is a de facto subsidy.

Honesty please, from all politicians.

William Durward, Bearsden.