Is no-one advising Nicola Sturgeon any more? That she is going to try writing another book is fine, although it opens her up to jibes about a “work of fiction” and so on. But the suggestion ("Sturgeon joins top political figures heading to the Edinburgh Fringe", The Herald, March 28) that her next book will be a political thriller in which she will seek revenge on some of her political opponents really does give us an insight into her current psychological state of mind. Not only will she be doing herself damage, but she will keep all the problems of yesterday in the public’s mind, and where is that going to end up?
None of this is going to end well for the former First Minister. Perhaps the book is supposed to be a form of therapy for her, but if it is, she needs to factor in that others will respond to it, and keep the arguments going for another while. She is never going to win that.
I think Ms Sturgeon just needs to disappear off to London as she said she would, and spare us her contributions to public or literary life. Get herself a cat and live quietly off her UK-funded pension. Try to regain at least some level of dignity and peer respect. That would be much better for her, much better for her former colleagues, and much better for the people of Scotland. Between her and her predecessor Alex Salmond, I think the bargain basket for books that no-one is interested in is full enough with their contributions already.
Victor Clements, Aberfeldy.
Read more letters
- How to get ahead in politics (hide genuine opinions)
- The career politicians are running scared of Reform - and no wonder
- Swinney says the NHS is improving - but is he correct?
The hope we all need
I noted that John Swinney had the word "HOPE" on his lectern for his speech to the Believe in Scotland march for independence in Edinburgh on Saturday ("John Swinney addresses Edinburgh independence rally", heraldscotland, March 28).
It was a good choice. The people on our islands hope they will have ferries to bring food and for them to get to the mainland. Those who have been robbed or raped hope there will be prison cells for the criminals. Those who travel the A9 hope they will not be killed before the road is duelled. Those who require hospital appointments for a diagnosis hope they get an appointment and appropriate treatment before they become worse and die.
Those who work hope taxes don't go any higher so they have some money left to spend. Those who have their adult children still living with them because their jobs (hairdresser, shop assistant, binman) do not allow them to buy a property hope they will be allowed to go on a council housing list, especially as their taxes are contributing to their schoolmates who don't work or who are addicts or alcoholics to get a house. All parents who have children at school hope they will have a violence-free classroom so they can learn.
Elizabeth Hands, Armadale.
Let's vote to close Holyrood
There should be an option open for all Scottish voters to mark "Close Holyrood" on their voting papers in May this year as a protest over where Scotland is now, with essential services in chaos, higher Scottish income taxes and a shambolic ferry service not fit for purpose. In addition to this there should be a realistic assumption that those that don’t vote are also making a protest against the highly expensive Holyrood additional layer of government that is certainly not performing for the Scottish people. On this basis Scotland could go back to the efficient system of having a Secretary of State for Scotland at a fraction of the cost, which certainly couldn't be worse than where we are now.
Dennis Forbes Grattan, Aberdeen.
Learn lessons from Wales
Ian Balloch (Letters, March 30) suggests a route into Bute House for Anas Sarwar through tactical voting, but this would require a broad understanding between Labour, Tory, Reform UK and the Lib Dems. Humbly I would suggest Mr Sarwar has never exhibited the skill needed to keep this four-ringed political circus on the road.
Mr Balloch also refers to the SNP as “incompetent amateurs”. Amateurs seems a tad unfair considering their long governmental experience compared to the tyro regime he prefers. Competence could be judged with reference to the 14 years of really bad Tory rule, or the near two-year stint of Keir Starmer's lot, which Anas Sarwar pretends is nothing to do with him. How about the almost three-decade rule of Labour in Wales? A contrast and compare between it and Scotland on all its devolved responsibilities might be instructive as to competence. Because there is only one UK Labour Party, what happens in Wales should guide us as to what would happen in Scotland.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
Spare us the celebrities
The media’s persistent habit of foregrounding celebrity opinion in the debate on Scottish independence is becoming increasingly difficult to defend. Recent contributions from figures such as Brian Cox and Alan Cumming illustrate the problem.
No one disputes their right to hold and express political views. However, the issue is not whether they may speak, but why their views are repeatedly elevated above those of people who actually live in Scotland and will experience the direct consequences of constitutional change. Independence is not a lifestyle accessory or a cultural gesture. It is a profound economic and political decision that will shape livelihoods, public services, taxation, and long-term national stability.
There is also a degree of selectivity, if not outright hypocrisy, that is rarely acknowledged. Many of these individuals built their careers within the structures of the wider UK, particularly through access to the London-based creative industries that continue to dominate the sector. Having benefited from those opportunities, their advocacy can appear detached from the very system that enabled their success, and from the realities faced by those who remain here.
More concerning is the role of the media bubble in amplifying these interventions. By repeatedly turning to celebrity voices, coverage risks substituting recognition for relevance. This is not a harmless editorial choice. It reshapes the tone of the debate, crowding out more informed perspectives and reinforcing the impression that visibility equates to authority.
One might reasonably ask whether the public has much interest in such contributions at all. Most people understand that constitutional questions demand careful consideration, evidence, and accountability. They are unlikely to be swayed by commentary that is, at best, distanced from everyday Scottish life, and at worst, performative.
If the aim is to support a serious national conversation, then the focus should shift accordingly. Greater prominence should be given to those with genuine expertise, and to the voices of citizens whose lives will be directly affected. Until that happens, the continued elevation of celebrity opinion will look less like journalism and more like a failure of editorial judgement.
James Roxburgh, Glasgow.
Swinney claim makes no sense
John Swinney claims that "on day one of a new SNP government, I will demand powers over energy to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament – so we can cut bills, protect jobs and unlock investment" ("Swinney to push for energy powers", The Herald, March 30). So says the guy who won’t allow new oil and gas fields to be exploited.
Mr Swinney is either ignorant or dishonest. Energy sources are owned by the companies that identified them and extracted their resources. They are not owned by Westminster, and could not be owned by Holyrood. Why does John Swinney not know that? That degree of ignorance make him unfit to be First Minister.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
• You report good news: on some days, fossil fuel is burnt to generate only a tiny percentage of our electricity demand (“Wind power hits new record as gas squeezed to tiny share of generation”, The Herald, March 27). For a very brief period, only 2.3% of British electricity was produced by burning gas, the most polluting and most expensive fuel. Over the year, about 30% of our electricity comes from gas.
The not-so-good news is that all electricity is priced at the cost of the most expensive kilowatt-hour produced. That means that, even if the vast majority of electricity is generated by cheaper means, the price won’t fall as long as a little gas generation is still used. Those expert in the dismal science (Economics) explain that this practice, marginal pricing, is the lowest-cost way to operate the electricity system, but I’m not entirely convinced that it produces the best outcome for customers who pay over the odds for electricity produced by cheaper means.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Share