AS a John Muir Trust Member, I can endorse most of chief executive Stuart Brooks’s defence of landscape adversely affected by misplaced windfarms (Letters, October 29).

However, his concerns are people-orientated, eg, “altering the character of views” to the detriment of tourists.

To achieve a climate-change-sensitive balance, I have long maintained that the Scottish Government should prioritise the needs of nature.

If that were to happen, windfarms would not be sited on peatlands or in any other environment where flora and fauna might be severely impacted.

Furthermore, I advocate that a fair proportion of the financial benefits accruing to communities should be paid by them as compensation for the destruction caused to wildlife habitats by windfarm hinterland.

Since animals don’t have bank accounts, I am sure they would be happy if the Scottish Wildlife Trust were to receive the money instead.

Above all, we should never forget that there is nothing more unnatural in nature than human beings!

David Ashford, Isleornsay, Isle of Skye

Referenda distort the process of democracy

IN the General Election of 1945, the Labour Party had a very clear set of policies, put forward by a known team of politicians. After their electoral success the policies were debated in parliament with an opposition that knew where it stood, and then enacted by majority vote.

Though the first-past-the-post electoral system was never perfect, much more unfair methods have been developed since, namely, referendums. In the the 1979 Scottish Assembly referendum the 40 per cent majority rule was introduced, and in 1999 an added vote on tax-raising powers was added to unbalance the result.

But the 2014 Scottish independence referendum brought in a new level of manipulation. A Unionist cabal of mainly rejected politicians from various parties constantly introduced new financial threats but also vows of increased powers with the purpose of wrong-footing the Yes campaign. When the Unionists won, none of these were ever properly debated by parliament, far less enacted.

However, the recent EU referendum has extended this distortion of democracy even further. It was never clear who was for and who against, and there were never two clear policies set out which could be supported or opposed. Now the die is cast there is a self-selected team of politicians that seem to have no policy and will not even debate the subject in parliament.

There is, though, another consistent theme since 1945. The new Labour government on gaining power immediately ditched one of their manifesto policies – that of Home Rule for Scotland.

Iain WD Forde, Scotlandwell, Kinross-shire

SCOTLAND a federal state? No, no, and a thousand times no!

Just take a look across the Atlantic at the joke which calls itself the United States. In some states abortion is legal, in others not, in some assisted suicide is accepted, in others decidedly not. Each state has autonomy over many laws – but it takes only a half-crazed President to declare war, and all states are then in a state of war.

Think back to the marches against the invasion of Iraq – in Glasgow alone, 100,000 people walked from the People’s Palace to the SECC in order to hear Tony Blair state his case. But when the columns of people arrived we discovered that, instead of making his speech at 2pm, Tony Blair had made it at 11am, and had then been helicoptered out rather than face the crowd.

Think on this when you consider federalism.

Full independence is the only way to go.

Margaret Sutherland, Stirling

ON recovering from convulsions of mirth brought on by reading the report that Ruth Davidson had been named Herald & Times politician of the year and – this is where I really lost it – Mundell named Westminster Scot of the year, I concluded there is indeed humour in politics.However, I came down to earth with a bump when I realised the sponsors were actually serious and gave as a reason for Davidson’s selection: “She has managed to restore the fortunes of a party regarded for so long as toxic in Scotland.”

With approximately

80 per cent of those voting in the Holyrood election shunning the Tories like the plague, that party, if not “toxic” , is a long way off being flavour of the month.

As an example of my fair-mindedness, however, if Davidson sustains her current level of support for the rest of her political career I will be delighted to lead heartfelt applause.

Malcolm Cordell, Broughty Ferry, Dundee

I WAS interested in the article about the MOD redeveloping their property on the island of Hirta, the main island of St Kilda (MoD tout Hirta base’s green credentials, The National, October 29) for three reasons.

Firstly, I stayed there as a member of a NTS Working Party in 1971, and it has been a very special place to me ever since.

Secondly, I would like to know if the MoD is simply upgrading the existing buildings which were used for accommodation and storage purposes, or if they are also extending military operations there?

I also wonder if the amount of ground space allocated to them by NTS, either in the village area or on the top of 1400-foot Conachair, is going to remain the same?

Thirdly, I wonder what would be the Scottish Government’s proposals that would apply to the St Kilda Rocket tracking station, and its associated Benbecula firing range, in the event of Scottish independence? Is the timing of the current redevelopment on St Kilda merely a coincidence?

Dennis White, Blackwood, Lanark

THANK you, Nick Jardine, for defending the performance of the NHS in Scotland and pointing out the facts (Letters, The National, October 29).

As a regular user of the NHS in recent years I can say that my own experiences have been uniformly satisfactory and bear no resemblance to the criticisms of politicians seeking to make a cheap point.

I have good cause to bless the organisation and particularly the wonderful staff who work in it.

So pay no attention to the shroud wavers in the media and the politicians who have their own party agenda. We know their true allegiance.

Peter Craigie, Edinburgh