I ENJOYED reading Ruth Wishart's column on a Sunday and generally agree her sentiments on whatever subject she chooses to discuss. In particular this Sunday, about the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR) which is still awaiting Westminster parliamentary approval.

But – and there’s always a “however” – I disagree with her suggestion that women who already support independence, because they disagree with the government on this issue, would mebby change their minds at the ballot box.

Surely not! Why would anyone who supports independence change their minds just because they disagree with a government policy? Not himself, that’s fae sure.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon responds to approval rating drop amid trans prisoners row

Scotland advertises itself as a democracy and, regardless of the Westminster attitude to demonstration and freedom of speech, we can do these things as and when the occasion arises without fear or favour of either parliament regardless of what we think of the different leaders.

And I doubt that Nicola Sturgeon will have any qualms over the fact she might upset a few people in the performance of her duties. Certainly, her parliamentary opposition are never a happy bunch of people.

We independence Yessers will be more concerned with, as Ruth puts it, “the almost theres, the mebbes ayes and the mebbes naws”. Their votes are more important than those who oppose the GRR, whether right or wrong.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

SADLY the results of the recent YouGov opinion poll were to be expected. The shambolic treatment by the Scottish Government of the gender recognition issue has set back the independence cause by years. The SNP/Green (or perhaps Green/SNP) Scottish Government, pressured by a small group of individuals, treated gender recognition, especially for 16-year-olds, with an urgency and importance clearly not shared by the general public.

A first-year modern studies school student who read the Scotland Act could have told the First Minister that Section 35 would end her GRR dreams. However it seems that, undeterred by the almost zero chances of winning any legal actions, large amounts of public money (currently in very short supply) are to be wasted in dragging this issue before the Court of Session and eventually the UK Supreme Court. It will be a process that will presumably take many months, greatly improve the bank balances of some lawyers, and lead to a further loss of support for Scottish independence.

READ MORE: Alister Jack ‘refuses to engage’ with Holyrood on Section 35, says minister

Recent events have managed the unthinkable – to bring together lifelong nationalists with hardline Unionists in opposition to this legislation. Independence supporters I know were frankly ashamed at the sight of some MSPs applauding the small band of so called “trans activists” in the public gallery of our parliament.

Just when you thought things could not get any worse, the subject of trans people in prisons floated to the top of the political agenda. Attempts by the government to try and separate the two issues have failed miserably. The news of prison vans shuttling up and down the M9 motorway between Cornton Vale and Edinburgh’s Saughton prison is not a vote-winner, First Minister.

Glenda Burns
Glasgow

A QUESTION for politicians, particularly the Conservatives. If trickle-down works, why do we have increasing levels of deprivation? How does growth in the incomes of the already wealthy lead to public economic benefit, and why have we not seen any? If austerity works, why have we had generations of young people entering the employment market who have known nothing but austerity and reductions in disposable incomes?

Trickle-down as a concept is not per se unreasonable to consider, but as an ideology it is significantly flawed. While resolving the banking crisis may have required a period of austerity, why have the wealthy minority including the bankers been able to increase their disposable income at everyone else’s cost? Where has that increase trickled down to the wider public? How do tax cuts pay for the NHS, emergency services and, given the international situation, defence? How does cutting or not increasing staff protect our borders?

READ MORE: Rishi Sunak creates FOUR new UK Government departments

Tax cuts are fine, nobody likes paying more tax than they can get away with, but they have to be affordable, and since taxes are raised to pay for public services it is a common principle that they should be in proportion to ability to pay. Allowing billions of pounds to be squirrelled away in untouchable and unaccountable off-shore tax havens is billions of pounds lost to the wider economy and public.

When is the promised “growth” going to feed into wider public good?

Nick Cole
Meigle, Perthshire

IN Friday’s paper Jim Butchart asks why the Scottish Government has prioritised the GRR Bill. The lack of progress towards independence made by them means that a distraction is required to keep supporters in tow. The GRR Bill does the job nicely, it’s divisive

and controversial, gets plenty of publicity and they’re seen to be doing something. Oh, and it puts independence further into the long grass. Job done! No need to bother about independence for another couple of years and something else will turn up.

Drew Reid
Falkirk

READ MORE: Welsh Government plans to mimic Scotland's gender reform bid

NICOLA Sturgeon at her press conference on Monday said the actions of one person in a group (in this case Isla Bryson) does not change the rules for the rest of that group. That is not true. The actions of the Dunblane shooter changed gun laws for everyone – so I say any person convicted of any sexual crime should not be eligible for a Gender Recognition Certificate or housed in a female-only space or allowed into a female-only facility.

Winifred McCartney
Paisley