GIVEN Theresa May is clearly being stage-managed through this election – even the calling of which was undoubtedly not her decision, but of those who are pulling her strings – wouldn’t this explain her massive U-turn on the subject?

Doesn’t May refusing to debate on TV, her stage-managed public appearances before Tory faithful and her deliberate distance from the press, lest they ask difficult questions, confirm that she is even being micro stage-managed, presumably in the hope that any lost votes because of the distance between her and the electorate will be more than compensated for by the anticipated landslide predicted by the polls? Stay neutral, keep repeating fatuous tag lines and limit any damage potential?

Given this, isn’t there every likelihood that the Tory party mandarins look like they’re being less than honest with the electorate?

Loading article content

Pardon my suspicion, but what is to prevent May being merely a surrogate to get the Tory Party through the election, only for a toxic Boris Johnson or David Davis, the cuckoos in the Tory leadership nest, to heave the fledgling May out of the nest? Hardly strong and stable is she?
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name-calling is a sign Tories have lost the argument

MY working life was spent in the building industry, with foreign and with British clients, private and local authority.

Because of this variety we had to cope with many types of contractual arrangements, which inevitably led to disputes, with both clients and with sub-contractors.

All parties usually tried to avoid litigation, relying on negotiation, which was not always amicable.

On occasions when an argument was being lost, one party would resort to personal criticism or sometimes even name-calling of an adversary.

When this occurred the target of that behaviour knew that his adversary had been overcome.

Some time ago, one of the parties in the current elections was referred to by its own leader as “the nasty party”. That description has now been fully earned.

Quite apart from their policies, the snide remarks, labelling and blatant name-calling being suffered, in particular by the leaders of the Scottish National Party and Labour Party, is disgraceful.

Those guilty of this are the leaders in England and in Scotland of the Conservative Party, who have each managed to plumb the depths of unacceptable behaviour in the hope that it will garner a few votes.

They ought to be ashamed, but, having watched PMQs and FMQs, I would be surprised if they were anything other than proud of themselves. I would be astonished if the majority of their supporters were equally proud of their conduct. We shall see! Politics has been described sometimes as a dirty business, but the tactics referred to are undignified, unnecessary, and worst of all dishonest.
John Hamilton
Bearsden

I HAVE been fighting for an independent and better Scotland all of my life so have been constantly disgusted by the antics of Westminster politicians.

It is not, however, a constitutional issue that has enraged me this time. For the Prime Minister to suggest that Jean-Claude Juncker would find her a “bloody difficult woman” is incredibly insulting. Gender is completely irrelevant to the Brexit negotiations.

I am in not in any respect a “feminist” as some in the SNP with long memories may know. My one attempt at public speaking was to debate against Alex Salmond on the issue of gender-balanced candidate shortlists. I spoke against this proposal and won the vote.

May might be difficult to deal with but, whether I like it or not, her current role is to lead the UK.

Her statement demeans and devalues the work of other women because it serves to suggest any achievements could be because of or despite their gender.

We are diverse people with our individual qualities and strengths. We should be judged on our actions irrespective of gender, county of birth or other characteristics that are not of our choosing.

Her suggestion makes the Brexit negotiations sound like marital discord, not the UK’s future relationship with Europe and the rest of the world.
Rona MacDonald
Pollokshields

INSTEAD of listening to the demands of the risible Jean-Claude Juncker, and his threats of a bill for leaving the EU, Theresa May should lodge counter-claims for the destruction of our fishing and agriculture, and the loss of our fully-funded state pension scheme, all done under the guise of “harmonisation”, which is EU-speak for theft.

Anyway, this murky organisation has never had an unqualified set of accounts in its life, so how does it know who owes what to anyone?
Malcolm Parkin
Kinnesswood, Perth and Kinross

DEAR Westminster, you did not free Europe with only minimal help from the rest of the Allies, and you did not become the master race! Despite what you think, and regardless of the number of games you invented, you will not always be allowed to write the rules and be team captain. The EU has some very determined views of its own. You are about to start the toughest negotiations there will to be until Scotland leaves the UK!
Douglas T
Dumbarton

SO, Ruthless Davidson has called Nicola Sturgeon a “Nat out of hell”! Would that be the hell you and your party are trying to force the Scottish people to “live” in, Ruthless? I hope our First Minister leads us out of that hell, permanently, after the General Election.

As for Ruthless’s remarks about education, when did the Tories ever give a damn about the welfare of the people? And could it be that educational targets are being missed (an assessment that hides a lot of success) because vicious Tory cuts have damaged people’s self-belief and expectations?

Alistair Darling condemning “nationalism” is further proof that this colonial clone only has the thinking genes of his masters. In England, nationalism (or “patriotism”) is a flag the Tories wave to cover over the fact their market-world can never deliver the needs of all the community.

Here, we realise there is personal justice, social justice, and national justice. Sometimes, like now, you can only get any one of those when you have all three together. Did Norway become anti-socialist when it regained its independence from Sweden in 1905? Iceland in 1918? Those countries are more socialist than England will ever be.

Go on, Nicola! Give them hell – the same hell they’d like our people to live in!
Ian McQueen
Cargenbridge, Dumfries