THE leaders of my party, the SNP, are prone to boast that under their guidance Scotland is a world leader, especially on matters related to climate. The only thing they qualify for in terms of world leadership is economic self-harm not far from idiocy.

Even if their pal Patrick Harvie reduced us all to eating porridge for every meal, confiscated our cars, banned foreign holidays, kept us frozen in winter when the wind didn’t blow, our contribution to CO2 reduction would be meaningless in a world where China (1,118), India (285), Japan (92), and others, are pumping it out through coal-fired power stations, and in the rest of the world, including the United States, countries are engaged in new oil exploration and development. I cannot be the only person who sees a difference between leaders’ rhetoric and actual practice.

There is a deep black hole in the Scottish Government finances, vital infrastructure will have to be abandoned, local government is in financial crisis, we lack affordable homes, and many of our people are at a level of poverty, and low wages, that make food banks a permanent feature of our society. Yet, as Rosebank, and the Clair field show, we are a nation rich in one of the most valuable resources used to power more than 50 per cent per cent of the world’s economy (coal 25 per cent).

Given that range of serious problems, it would be more fitting for an SNP First Minister to be hammering on the No 10 door, not to criticise Rosebank, but to ask where is our share? Or is it the case that under an SNP Government we are content with our unique position of being the only developed economy where vast amounts of oil and gas is discovered, and a high proportion of our people get poorer? Fergus Ewing ("SNP MSPs vote to suspend Ewing", The Herald, September 28) is not the only one in despair.

Jim Sillars, Edinburgh.

Hypocrisy over North Sea oil

THE shameless hypocrisy of some of your independence-supporting correspondents never ceases to amaze me.

John Jamieson and Ruth Marr (Letters, September 28) both appear to aver that the recent information concerning the volume of oil in the Rosebank oil field would have proved significant if it had been revealed before now – per Mr Jamieson, on the basis that it would have a material benefit upon the living standards of Scots and, per Ms Marr, that it would have been significant to the outcome if Nicola Sturgeon had been able to hold the independence referendum for which she fought in 2023.

May I politely remind both correspondents that, if Scotland had become an independent nation, the Rosebank oil field would never have seen the light of day, given the policy u-turn of this SNP/Greens coalition over the stance taken by the SNP, prior to the 2014 independence referendum, in respect of the importance of North Sea oil and gas to Scotland’s economy as an independent state?

Bob Hamilton, Motherwell.

• FOLLOWING the Rosebank announcement, Humza Yousaf stated: “this is the wrong decision” ("FM slams Rosebank decision", The Herald September 28). What utter hypocrisy from a party which a decade ago shouted from the rooftops “It’s Scotland’s oil” and based its economic case on North Sea production.

In showing his hand, perhaps he can explain in some detail where and how the “hundreds of thousands” of jobs in renewables, so widely lauded, will come about as he trashes the livelihoods of oil and gas workers.

His failure to support North Sea jobs, families and businesses will hopefully aid his party’s demise.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar.

Read more: Rosebank move just piles on the agony for Scotland

Ewing ban will rebound on party

WITH reference to the SNP party decision to suspend Fergus Ewing, this "slap on the wrist" will no doubt come back to roost at the next election, and hopefully deliver a full-blooded metaphorical punch in the face at the ballot box to the SNP.

It is clear that toeing the party line is a matter of paramount importance to the SNP. Slavish adherence to what the party says trumps honour and integrity in the role of an MSP/MP, who is trying to fight for the wishes and needs of the constituency, because remember, that is why our representatives are elected first and foremost. Or at least it used to be, didn’t it ?

Colin Allison, Blairgowrie.

Blame UK for health decline

“WE should be ashamed,” cries Richard Allison (Letters, September 28) without any sense of the sad irony in castigating the SNP for the poor state of health of the people of Scotland, apparently, in his mind, separated from the economic reality of life for generations struggling in deprived areas across “Great Britain”, and particularly for those living in Scotland, within the Union.

Of course, for those with their heads in the sand it is easy to attack the SNP in government for not spending pennies more wisely while many more pounds are blown away by the UK Government on an HS2 project that cannot be delivered, a test\track\trace system that was never fit for purpose and procured PPE that had to be condemned to the bonfire. That said, in spite of his personal view, it appears according to the latest census that many from south of the Border have come to a different conclusion and prefer to rely on the better-performing NHS and the many health and social care benefits of living in Scotland than depend on the diminishing public health service offered in England and Wales.

If sincere, those genuinely believing that this broken Union can actually be fixed would be demanding, at the very least, that a proportionate level of major investment in infrastructure spending should go into the “Far North” (read Scotland) rather than shedding crocodile tears for Scotland’s regrettable predicament resulting from decades of under-investment (in spite of the huge tax revenues that have arisen from exploitation of Scotland’s colossal oil and gas resources). Alternatively they could help to make Scotland better by supporting self-determination.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Read more: Food banks and children freezing: who will rescue Rutherglen?

Cleaning up Sturgeon's mess

THE failure of the Scottish Government to deliver on the £26 billion of investment plans to vital services ("Cuts and cost rises hit £26bn investment in vital services", The Herald, September 28) reminds me of the Jasper Carrot joke, that his "mother-in-law claimed she had never been involved in any car accidents in her life, but had seen hundreds in her rear-view mirror".

This joke could equally apply to former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's legacy of waffling headline-grabbing sound bites to fanfares of trumpets and grandiose posturing just as the cuts and delays are being made while she has left the scene of carnage behind her.

It is now left to her successor Humza Yousaf and her best pal Shona Robinson to clean up the mess with damage limitation excuses and trotting out the SNP default position, "it wisnae me it wis Westminster".

We don't all button up the back.

Allan Thompson, Bearsden.

Sign up for the Letter of the Day newsletter.

LibDems should aim lower

I NOTE that Sir Ed Davey hopes to take the Liberal Democrats back to the level of parliamentary representation they had under Charles Kennedy. These ambitious plans would see them win between 40-50 seats at Westminster.

He bases this ambition on their recent and I would say impressive by-election performances. However, it is one thing to win a by-election that a political party has thrown all its resources at. It’s quite another to do that in 40 new constituencies as well as defending the seats it already had.

The LibDems do not have the money, organisation and more importantly the activists to target that number of seats. Indeed, watch Sir Ed’s speech and you’ll notice the conference hall he was speaking in was more than half empty.

If the LibDems can’t fill out their conference then they clearly do not have the members to target dozens of seats in the next General Election. They would be better concentrating their resources on around 10 seats and in the others urge their supports to back Labour or the SNP in order to oust the Tories.

Alexander Lunn, Edinburgh.

A question for Braverman

CALL me naive but is not the West’s historical attitude to empire-building and more recently the intervention (for example Afghanistan) or not (Syria) in conflicts, at least in part, the original source of the refugee/asylum problem ("Asylum system is an 'existential threat’ to West says Braverman", The Herald September 27). We are trying to solve the problem at the end of the pipe, rather than at source.

I’d ask if Ms Braverman would wish to stay in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime?

Willie Towers, Alford.