Labour's doing what the Tories should have done: long may it continue

The fact is we have to and it requires a government of the "working man" to say and show that if things like welfare, defence and NHS are not radically reformed and properly funded (up or down) this country is finished, and I just hope it carries on to haul immigration, net zero and the excesses of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) into hard-nosed, sensible shape.

Just one example: how on earth is it that, according to the DWP the number of young people with "limited capacity for work-related activity" has trebled from 46k to 160k since Covid?

Choppy seas are ahead. The Government will find that nobody wants to employ many of the people classed as fit for work because they're actually unemployable. There will be a huge backlash from the party, the commentariat, and vested interests desperate to keep jobs, funding and influence. But the moral tide, driven, it has to be said, by Donald Trump and Reform, is on Labour's side and if it succeeds, we all succeed, including in Scotland, where the SNP should be shown the door next year.

And if Anas Sarwar could give himself a shake, overcome the zealots in his own party and follow the UK and English examples we could have a fair, prosperous, well-educated, healthy, once-again proud country.

The good news for the Neil Mackays of this world is, if the independence option ever comes up again we may have a country whose economy and society is a viable candidate for going it alone, and where a properly informed decision can be taken.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

• In Neil Mackay's article one small paragraph jumped out at me; he wrote: "Starmer talks of the moral imperative when it comes to getting people into work. Sure there's a moral imperative for folk who can work, but it's immoral to force those too ill into employment."

It reminded me that there was once a company that was created to give employment to just this cohort of people, including those from the armed forces. It was called Remploy. It is now part of a business called Maximus, although the Remploy name is apparently still used in Scotland, but why don't we know more about this organisation and what it does? Surely this particular Government, and its party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, should be expanding this business and extolling what it does by enabling employment and work opportunities for these people who may be out of work through no real fault of their own and who find it difficult to be employed in mainstream businesses.

Ian Gray, Croftamie.

Read more letters

• When can we stop all the hypocrisy over transgender rights?
• Are there any socialists left in the Labour Party? Anyone?

Cut public sector, not benefits

The salaries paid by various public services seem excessive. Take Ofcom, the television, postal and broadband regulator, for example. The chief executive officer is on £357,000 per year, there are six directors paid over £250,000 a year, and another seven officials receive over £180,000 – more than the PM is paid. It offers flexible working too – "if you need to do the school run Ofcom can make it happen".

If Chancellor Reeves is forced to make cuts in her budget on the 26th she should do so in the public sector before cutting support payments for the disabled.

William Loneskie, Lauder.

More of the same SNP dross?

With 23 SNP MSPs leaving Holyrood next May, John Swinney is on standby to issue his thanks for their service to any others who take the same decision. Of the 23 so far, with the possible exception of Annabelle Ewing, it has to be said that they never will be missed. They have sat on the SNP benches and clapped like obedient seals when a cabinet minister has said something pejorative about opposition politicians instead of answering their questions.

It is certainly welcome that Michael Matheson will be leaving his seat ("Matheson to step down in 2026", The Herald, March 17). This is surely not at the behest of the national SNP, whose officers vetted him and, incredibly, passed him as fit to stand again, after he had lied to his colleagues at Holyrood, his boss, the press and the public.

Who will the retirees' replacements be? Will there be bright new talent stepping up? Answer: highly unlikely. Or will there be more of the perpetual political dross that has had no career worth talking about outside Holyrood and the SNP? Or will most of the nominations be taken by rejects from Westminster who lost their seats last July? With the SNP losing 38 of them, there are certainly plenty looking to regain a place on the political gravy train. Tommy Sheppard, Anne McLaughlin, Alyn Smith and Alison Thewlis have already indicated interest. And then there are the sitting SNP MPs who are eyeing a seat at Holyrood: Stephen Flynn, Stephen Gethins and Dave Doogan. Are they being allowed to stand for Holyrood while still MPs? Or did the rule banning that apply only to Joanna Cherry?

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

• The SNP is trying to change its direction in full public view. The MSP most likely not to stand again was Michael Matheson yet it has taken him until now to state he will not seek re-election. It is crystal clear that the SNP is seeking to remove the old guard at Holyrood and replace them with the failed MPs from last July's General Election. This is a case of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

If the SNP put half as much effort into creating new policies it might stand a chance. As it is the public will not be fooled by the same old faces in a different setting.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

How do you fail this process?

So Michael Matheson will step down at the next election, which will probably be more than one year away. Why not step down now, or before now? I submit that his primary reason is  financial, with current salary and expenses exceeding by far his expected income from "new challenges". A secondary reason is that the First Minister requires his vote in the Scottish Parliament.

I note that he has recently passed the SNP vetting process to stand again, begging the question what would he or anyone have to do to fail the vetting process?

William Durward, Bearsden.

Michael Matheson will not stand at the next Holyrood election (Image: PA)

We need a second chamber

I read with interest Mark Smith's article ("Here we go again. Why are so many Scottish laws a bit rubbish?", The Herald, March 15).

Legislation produced by Holyrood suffers from the ruling SNP party producing laws to satisfy its own voters at the expense of the overall electorate. This was given a stratospheric boost when the SNP had to kowtow to the Greens in order to stay in power which resulted in a docked tail violently wagging an overweight dog.

Add to that a politicised civil service who no longer advise but promote the mediocrity of the MSPs who have never had a job outside of politics, never in the real world of business, law or community, and a justice system that is part of the government instead of being wholly independent and we have the perfect storm of statutory incompetence.

Whilst the SNP decries the House of Lords and howl for its abolition, it is ironic that such a second chamber would allow for proper scrutiny of the many pieces of legislation that have failed, that are poorly constructed and have been badly created, lacking detail that would actually allow them to work. Such a chamber should represent the electorate without party prejudice and make the Scottish Government sit up and listen to the real groundswells of opinion.

Appointees should be voluntary with expenses paid but with minimal recompense ensuring commitment and their selection made on real and tangible merit from education, business, legal, community and the like and except any politicians past or present.

This might actually make the Scottish Parliament perform as it was originally intended but, unfortunately, it might also embarrass the SNP Government, therefore I don't think is will be happening any time soon.

Peter Wright, West Kilbride.