Letters I: Ruth Davidson U-turned on indyref2, just like Dugdale

This was naturally seized on by the Conservatives, claiming this was evidence that they are the only true pro-Union party and the UK was guaranteed to be safe in their hands.

However, what seems to have been forgotten is that in July 2016, just over a month after the Brexit vote, Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she would advise the next prime minister not to block a request by Nicola Sturgeon for a second independence referendum.

Indeed, she said she had never thought that one should be denied because she is a “democrat”.

It is a little hypocritical, dare I say it, for Ruth Davidson to attack Kezia Dugdale, when she herself is guilty of doing the same thing.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh

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

Brexit the critical issue when you cast your vote

WHEN the Prime Minister decided to circumvent the Fixed-term Parliament Act and call a snap General Election – purportedly to improve her hand during the Brexit negotiations – she clearly hoped to exploit doubts over Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership capabilities for the political advantage of increasing the Tories’ majority in the House of Commons.

Her arrogance is clearly evidenced in the Conservative manifesto that is not backed by any costings, yet much of the mainstream media, including the BBC, has been distracted by questions over the economic details of proposed taxes and spending of the other political parties, often without reference to the huge economic and social implications of Brexit.

In Scotland, there have been further distractions with debate over devolved matters such as health and education which has often inappropriately been focused on selected statistics associated with the performance of the Scottish Government instead of the broader spending decisions made at Westminster.

In spite of these distractions, the illusion of a “strong and stable” leader had already begun to fade as her disparaged challenger appeared more credible even before the recent tragic events in Manchester and London.

There is now no time to assess objectively whether Theresa May’s performance as Home Secretary was as dismal on policing and national security as it was on immigration, although reducing police numbers in England appears to have been ill-advised.

Hopefully, however, it is not too late for the electorate to realise that a Brexit ship captained by Theresa May is headed for disaster and that the Scottish economy will sink along with the UK economy unless the people of Scotland choose to board a different ship that they can help to navigate in a new direction.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian

AFTER listening to speeches by Labour’s Kezia Dugdale and the Conservatives’ Ruth Davidson, it would appear they are all about their obsessive attack on proposals for a second independence referendum, while giving scant details on any policies they may allegedly have.

There has been little mention of Brexit from either of them and little mention of how they would plan to shield Scotland from the harsh economic reality of a hard Brexit. Only Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are willing to argue point-by-point with Theresa May; to insist Scotland is represented in the Brexit negotiations; and to argue that staying in the single market will soften the blow for our country.
Olga Ferguson
Edinburgh

KEY debating issues relating to independence have been misunderstood in recent years, both here and overseas. A difficult factor has been the complexity of the debate, which has been oversimplified by the anti-independence parties. Their arguments go something like this: Scotland agreed to become part of the Union in 1707 and if Scotland now objects to receiving a small portion of what it has donated through taxation, it is being selfish because we need to “share”. We are a “family of nations” and all nations benefit equally.

In the pro-independence narrative, 1707 saw the beginning of the development of the Empire. The Scottish aristocrats who ignored riots to accept the Union were eager for a share of the spoils. The lords and ladies of Highland estates demanded from their tenants a soldier per family for their imperial exploits or the tenancies would be cancelled. Classic misuse of power to divide and rule.

The disparity in size of the Scottish and English electorates is rarely regarded as a democratic issue. The differing electoral results – the Thatcher/Cameron governments and the EU referendum – are never considered as democratic issues. There are critical differences now in attitudes to foreign policy, Trident and immigration.

It is not difficult to follow why the Conservatives would be desperate to retain Scotland in the Union, whose greatest beneficiaries have been in London and the South East.

But the Labour Party position is much more difficult to fathom unless they have accepted, uncritically, the imperial historical narrative.
Maggie Chetty
Glasgow

I AGREE with Alasdair Forbes about debates on the BBC during the build-up to the election showing how little the corporation has progressed (Letters, June 7). Time and time again they show obvious biased against the SNP. Glen Campbell the other night was no better.

On the other hand, the Scottish party leaders’ debate on STV last night was handled very well by Bernard Ponsonby.

A way must be found to sideline the BBC. I have not watched BBC news reports for some time now and, perhaps, if more people did the same they might, just might, get the message when viewing figures drop in Scotland.
Watt Smillie
Whitburn

IF the Scottish-born population of Scotland is 83 per cent – as recorded in the 2011 census – then why does it always appear that less than 50 per cent of the audiences are Scottish in any of the televised debates here in Scotland?
Linda Horsburgh
Dundee