All this talk of the Union tells us all we need to know

To misquote Neville Chamberlain, is Scotland a far away country of which we know nothing?

Boris Johnson launched his leadership campaign talking of strengthening the Union of our four nations, the soft power superpower, the awesome foursome. Of course it is de rigueur for a Conservative leader to speak affectionately of the Union.

In September 2014 a sobbing David Cameron said he loved it more than his party, and begged folk to phone their Scottish relatives to vote No, to ensure we stayed in the EU. New PM Theresa May, in July 2016, spoke of the precious bond between the four nations. No Tory PM wants the break-up of the UK on their watch.

When it suits a Conservative leader, we are reminded that Scotland is an equal partner in the Union. Mrs May repeated it in Stirling last Thursday. However, watching the Hustings programmes – ie BBC's "Our Next Prime Minister"(June 18), CH4's "Britain's Next PM the C4 Debate"(June 16), and ITV's "Britain's Next Prime Minister – The ITV Debate"(July 9), you soon realised Scotland is peripheral.

I wrote to all three Channels to ask why Scotland barely rated a mention.

CH4 replied they were sorry all the questions came from English viewers. They said they chose the invited audience to ensure its diversity, and political and other demographics – eg that over 50% came from outside London.

The BBC said they ensured a geographical spread from people with a variety of ages and backgrounds. It was not possible to hear from people "from every pocket of the UK", they said. Apparently they did have someone lined up next from Cardiff but ran out of time.

ITV viewer services speculated, maybe, we had not used the correct link to submit a question (what? the whole nation?). However, no question had apparently come in from outwith England.

With Mrs May in Stirling and Messrs Johnson and Hunt in Perth, we have been told all we needed to know about the Conservatives' private polling on just now poor their support is north of the Border. Dr Gordon Brown talked of the "greatest existential threat to the Union in 300 years" – which does rather hint at Labour's too.

Perhaps their private polling reflects Westminster's attitude to Scotland, which the three TV debates faithfully replicated.

John V Lloyd

Inverkeithing

Mandate and some striking similarities

I was very interested in your story on low turnouts in elections to university courts and the depressing parallels with the current elections in the Tory party ("Massive vote of no confidence for elections to university courts," July 7).

The Scottish Tories' shadow education secretary Liz Smith thinks "those who are elected have a very limited mandate and that, in turn, calls into question accountability".

Can you use that quote in the next few weeks when your paper reports on how many members of the Tory party voted for Boris rather than Jeremy Hunt to commit Brexit on behalf of 17 million, mostly English, bamboozled voters, to the derision of 400+ million Europeans, the annoyance of 62% of Scots, and the smirking amusement of one Vladimir Putin?

Norrie Forrest

Kincardine

Anti-Scottish? Not quite ...

I understand how some, like Iain Macwhirter, choose to interpret the comments of the two Tory leadership candidates in the most negative terms ("The headline message from both Tory candidates in the Perth hustings was withering contempt for the independence movement," Herald on Sunday, July 7). After all, for those who favour independence, the thought of a continuing UK government refusal to issue a section 30 order to enable another referendum must seem very frustrating.

However, it is wrong to talk as Macwhirter does of there having been “a dramatic hardening of rhetoric against Scotland during this campaign”. A hardening of attitude against the SNP perhaps, but certainly not Scotland as a whole. Only the SNP and the independence movement’s hardline core like to equate Scotland and the nationalist cause.

As angry as some who want to break away from the UK might be about not getting their way, they have to concede that at least half of Scots would agree with the UK government continuing to hold off agreeing to another independence referendum. For many it will seem reasonable to at least wait until the impact of Brexit is clear, and indeed until there is wider support for revisiting the constitutional issue again.

Keith Howell

West Linton

We need to breathe new life into Glasgow ... and quickly

I am Glasgow born and bred – and proud of it. Not so long ago marked the point when I have lived more of my life outwith the city than in it. I promote and defend my city but in regular visits over he last 30 years I cannot help but agree with your opinion piece and GMB’s Gary Smith (Herald on Sunday, June 7) that the city is in decline.

The public transport is increasingly shoddy. When Scotland was playing away from Hampden during the Commonwealth Games year, I walked back from Ibrox and Celtic Park to Queen Street station with only one bus passing me on arterial routes into the city centre. That would not have happened a couple of decades ago.

Public realm and space looks like it has ad-hoc maintenance; poor litter collection (and disposal) adds to and will perpetuate the rundown feel. That will affect and influence visitors' choices on whether to return but, more importantly, it impacts on Glasgow’s residents.

A plan of action is needed to address connectivity within and into the city, arrest the decline in maintenance and appearance, and direct investment in jobs and training to deal with social issues. The quality and choice of housing stock has for generations been a problem.

Brian Evans’ appointment as the first City Urbanist is a positive move in the right direction and can help Glasgow recover its position as the country’s major city and economic driver, but the city council needs to recognise where the failings of the last 20 years are – and work to campaign against what I’ve seen as a strategy since the 1980s of growing Edinburgh (no constriction of municipal boundaries there as there was in Glasgow and Dundee) to Glasgow’s detriment. These cities must complement each other.

Bill Lindsay

Newport-on-Tay

If you don't talk you don't learn

Re your front-page headline last week in reporting the existence of the Edinburgh-Russia Conversations group (Herald on Sunday, July 7). As we are cross-party and no party, why on earth should we report our existence and activities to Nicola Sturgeon? As for our meeting with the Korchakov Russians being secret, it was held under Chatham House Rules, normal when engaging in frank off-the-record discussions. Chatham House Rules is not a Russian invention, but arises from the practice of that London think tank, which has become universal.

The headline inside suggested we had, or were seeking, some connection with the Russian government in Moscow. We represent no one but ourselves, and it is highly unlikely that, other than the Russian Consul General who assisted us with information on think tank contacts, which is part of his job, any Russian Minister or Mr. Putin even knows we exist. Talking to Russians is no more an endorsement of the Putin regime anymore than talking to Americans is a signal for support of Trump.

Our purpose, in a modest way, is to talk to Russian people, especially those in think tanks who can influence opinion as they connect with policymakers inside Russia, and outside Russia, which they do on an extensive basis. Put basically: if you don’t talk you don’t learn, and if you don’t learn therein lies dangerous ignorance.

Jim Sillars

Edinburgh