DURING coverage of the local elections in England, I noticed a worrying narrative from Labour and Tory representatives when asked about the performance – or even mere presence – of smaller parties like the Greens, LibDems and Reform UK, when considering any effect on their General Election performance.

The argument they both gave, in response to criticism of the Conservatives for not being conservative enough, or Labour for not being progressive enough, is that voters who feel like that need to treat the election as a choice between either Labour or the Tories in Number 10; Starmer or Sunak; red or blue. This is an admission that we live in a two-party system, and that while other parties, policies, and ideologies exist, it is only theirs that matter.

READ MORE: AI deepfake video of John Swinney on Sky News goes viral on Twitter

The most worrying part is that there was never any challenge from interviewers about this, but that’s because – by virtue of the first-past-the-post voting system – they are basically right, it’s just that they’re saying the quiet part out loud: in England, you’re voting for the party of Margaret Thatcher or the party with a leader who looks up to Margaret Thatcher; the party that introduced the two-child cap or the party that intends to keep the two-child cap; the party that took us out of the EU or the party that plans to keep us out of the EU ... you get the idea!

In Scotland, however, we have a third option. We know that regardless of how we vote, the now 543 English seats, of a total 650, will likely determine the next government and prime minister, so it’s worth remembering that the SNP in Westminster has often acted as the parliament’s conscience, and while the “Official Opposition” is meant to hold government to account, the SNP have held both government and opposition to account, and the SNP have constantly reminded the Labour Party of the values it once had, whilst also holding a mirror up to the naked fascism in the words and actions of the party opposite.

Ultimately, a vote for the SNP at the General Election is a vote to reject the idea that we must accept what either the Tories or Labour are offering us, because for as long as they – and the Liberal Democrats – continue to stand arm in arm, better together, under the red, white and blue banner of “Unionism”, they will forever be offering us less than the SNP, with the prize of independence and all the powers that come with it, including democracy itself.

Jim Love
Islay

I ENJOYED reading Laura Webster’s piece about Patrick Harvie (Back to the basics, May 5), but I was disturbed by the idea that those of us who voted SNP 1/Greens 2 would be put off doing so again by the ending of the Bute House Agreement.

Harvie’s patient explanation was well reported. Targets were set but not met, and not enough effort was put into saving the planet. Never was a truer word uttered, but it behoves anyone with progeny to move forward with some grit to try and save our precious and irreplaceable living space.

READ MORE: I made the Greens pro-independence – here's the truth about their approach to Yes

I can easily understand why voting for the SNP in a Westminster General Election might hasten the demise of the Tories, but why not support the Greens when we are next allowed to vote for the Holyrood parliament? I find it unbelievable that, following Humza Yousaf’s fatal mistake, any supporter of the SNP and Scottish independence would desist from voting for biodiversity and the survival of the human race.

Would Labour be a better alternative? Surely not. What would be the point? They clearly aren’t interested in either independence or our future.

Tony Kime
Kelso

I WAS deeply impressed by Naomi Klein’s address at the Seder in the Streets in New York, which was printed in The Guardian newspaper on April 24. She spoke of Zionism as a false idol, such as Jewish people are commanded to spurn.

In rabbinic tradition, as I understand it, the coming of the Messiah is supposed to herald the gathering of the chosen people in the promised land once again, and the rebuilding of the temple. The religious Zionist extremists seem to want to usurp this function, presumably thinking that if they gather the Jewish people and build their temple, destroying Al-Aqsa mosque in the process, they will force the Messiah’s hand? I can only understand this as blasphemous. It’s supposed to be God’s work.

READ MORE: One-year-old killed by ‘single gunshot to head' in Gaza

Remember that Al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam. Its destruction would surely ignite an explosion across the Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia. Israel’s “security” minister, the hideous Ben-Gvir, has been repeatedly trying to incite trouble over the mosque, to such an extent that even in Netanyahu’s extremist government, I believe he has now been relieved of responsibility for the site.

Finally, there is a quote I came across a good number of years ago, attributed to an American priest, who I think aimed it at the Christian right, but it seems apt in this context: “You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

Robert Moffat
Penicuik