PM may be weak, but rebels have shown our democracy remains strong

An alternative and, at a time of deep disillusionment and cynicism with politics, more optimistic, reading of the situation is possible, especially in relation to the issue of disability benefits. Here is a case of a government with a large majority being compelled to reconsider a central aspect of its policy. It is a case of the Executive being closely scrutinised, even overruled, by the Legislature. If the theory of British government that Parliament is sovereign is sound, this "rebellion" can only be regarded as positive.

The role and place of MPs has long been a matter of constitutional debate, especially with regard to where their ultimate loyalty should lie: to their party; their constituents; their own consciences? This seems to be a welcome, if rare, example of the last two trumping the first. Fear of Whips and concerns over future prospects of promotion seem on this occasion to have been set aside.

Keir Starmer and his Government may well be weak and lacking in direction but there are aspects of last week's actions by many Labour MPs which have political and constitutional significance.

Brian Harvey, Hamilton.

Don't write off Fergus Ewing

I read with interest Mark McGeoghegan’s column (“Why I think the odds are against Fergus Ewing”, The Herald, June 27).

Mr McGeoghegan seems to think that people vote for the party rather than the candidate.

That is not always the case, as my own experience proved. I had the privilege of representing my constituents in the House of Commons for over a quarter of a century. During that time, I observed a massive increase in control freakery whereby the party Whips instructed members how to vote on virtually every issue and the vast majority of MPs did what they were telt, even if they were voting against the interests of their constituents. That trend has continued both at Westminster and Holyrood, although the recent rebellion by 129 Labour MPs on the issue of welfare cuts is a welcome sign that some may be discovering they have a spine.

Read more letters

• There's a parliament for the Central Belt. What about the rest of us?
• Want to talk about waste, Mr Swinney? Have you got a mirror?
• The CalMac ferries are better than the catamaran option

In the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Labour Party barred me from being a Labour candidate despite the fact that I had the support of 97% of party members in my constituency. When I stood as an Independent, a major part of my campaign was getting across the message that a Parliamentarian should be first and foremost a representative of the people rather than a party puppet. My constituents elected me with the biggest majority in Scotland in 1999 and again in 2003.

I served in the Scottish Parliament for eight years along with Fergus Ewing. I did not always agree with Fergus but he is no puppet and he has a track record of fighting for his constituents.

Only a fool would write him off.

Dennis Canavan, Bannockburn.

Roddick does not deserve support

In Kathleen Nutt's interview with Emma Roddick ("On gender and fox hunting, I am opposite of Fergus, says Roddick", The Herald, June 30), she argues that Inverness and Nairn voters should vote for her, not for Fergus Ewing, if they want independence and “even greater powers for the Highlands”. She clearly has a sense of humour, albeit a warped one.

The track record of her party in government since 2007 has been one of centralisation. The Highlands and Islands have lost their regional police and fire services. Local government – which is particularly important in rural and island areas – has seen its share of Scotland’s financial cake steadily cut, so reducing council's power to act. The SNP has packed the boards of quangos serving the Highlands and Islands, such as CMAL and HIAL, with people with little real understanding of the needs of the Highlands and Islands. The SNP is now a party of the Central Belt. It has such an appalling record of ignoring the needs of the rest of Scotland that Mr Ewing, a long-term loyal party member, is driven to oppose it.

It is sad that the party desperate for power to be transferred from London to Edinburgh puts the principles of devolution into reverse when it sucks power into the centre from Scotland’s peripheral regions. But the message has to be that, if you want greater powers for the Highlands (or the Islands or the Borders), the SNP does not deserve your vote.

Alistair Easton, Edinburgh.

How to fix voting system

Guy Stenhouse correctly identifies the voting system for MSPs as the underlying problem in the operation of the Scottish Parliament ("Can anyone truly say that the Scottish Parliament has been a success?", The Herald, June 28). The MSPs, both constituency and regional members, are too beholden to their parties and not sufficiently accountable to their electorates.

But the solution is not to tinker with the regional list component of the Additional Member System. Instead, the whole voting system should be changed to elect all MSPs by STV-PR.

Then all MSPs would be elected on the same basis and all MSPs would be accountable primarily to the voters who voted for them. Then the parliament would function as originally intended, with MSPs and committees holding ministers and the Government effectively to account.

James Gilmour, Edinburgh.

Fergus Ewing is standing as an Independent at the next Scottish election (Image: PA)

SNP folly on defence

If there is one issue that exposes the silliness of SNP policy, it is defence. The party is a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons, and many of its members believe that it is wrong to spend substantial sums on defence when there is poverty and deprivation at home. These people do not realise that the first duty of government is defence of the realm. You cannot secure health, education and other domestic benefits if you are not able to defend your shores.

Now the party that has affected a largely pacifist posture, while expecting to shelter under Nato, is beginning to recognise reality with voices within it justifying more spending on defence in the context of wars in Europe and the Middle East ("Former Westminster leader calls on SNP to support UK defence industry", The Herald, June 30). Above all, the ban on providing public funds for the manufacture of weapons needs to be abandoned. Doing so can be justified on grounds of providing well-paid jobs.

Yet the SNP will feel the pull of the irrational forces in our polity yet again if in 2026 it falls short of a majority and requires to seek coalition allies like the pacifist Greens.

The way to make Scotland, as part of the UK, safe, is to vote for parties other than the SNP and the Greens.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.

Swinney should be replaced

First Minister John Swinney, in protecting the status quo, with his quiet courtesy, is not what is needed right now. With the forthcoming Holyrood election in mind, the SNP must work with the Yes campaign, Believe in Scotland and others in putting independence first along with the good governance of the country.

Scotland needs a strong and forceful leader, with the confidence and competence of an Alex Salmond to lead and unite the country. Sadly this SNP-led Scottish Government with many prominent members retiring, is short on such leadership contenders.

However there is the articulate honesty of Kate Forbes, whose early ministerial years have been tempered by diplomacy. The tenacity and eloquence of Stephen Flynn must feature along with the brilliant Stephen Gethins. One person who should be listened to is Alba leader Kenny MacAskill, whose vast experience should be called upon to galvanise a listless and dispirited Scotland.

What is surely self-evident is that the status quo is not an option and will not excite or persuade people that independence is the only way to a prosperous and fairer Scotland. In fact English nationalism is also contributing to the breakup of the British state – the English have always been confused about being British.

Grant Frazer, Newtonmore.