Herald letter: So is there any level of pain that would be too much for the SNP?

FULL marks to Iain Macwhirter for his excellent column on the new landscape which those who support Scottish independence must now face (“Voters will twig that Sturgeon is kidding about indyref2”, The Herald, April 28). In the light of these new circumstances, it is now incumbent on nationalists, foremost amongst them Nicola Sturgeon, to be interrogated on their plans to move forward.

A good start would be for her to be clear what levels of economic hardship or social hardship would or would not be acceptable to her. Her red lines clearly do not exclude a hard border and massive friction to Scottish trade with rUK, and it would appear she would accept any conditions for entry to the EU without asking Scottish voters if they agree.

We need to know what levels of economic austerity and social hardship and for how long would be acceptable to reach the Promised Land. In short, who would pay for independence? How much it would cost us: and is there any level of pain that would be too much for the SNP?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: Labour and Indyref2

ANDY Maciver predicts that Scottish Labour will change its policy to one of support for indyref2. In doing so, he shows his lack of awareness that such a change would require the consent of the party’s membership through conference decisions. This would be unlikely, as the one thing which the party requires its members to sign up to is the principle that “by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone”.

This principle is about as close to a polar opposite to the divisive binary politics of indyref2 as could be imagined. And besides, those who seek independence and another referendum to achieve it already have another party to join.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

Herald letter: Holyrood has failed, time for double-devo.

DOUG Marr tells us very correctly that Holyrood is not perfect, but complains that the alternatives are much worse (“Holyrood is far from perfect but the alternatives would be much worse”, The Herald, April 12).

In fact, its biggest flaw is that it is not being used for its original intentions, namely to make Scottish politics more accountable to Scottish voters. Current proof of this failure is the admission by the Health Secretary and the First Minister of a fatal blunder leading to the deaths of thousands of elderly people with their policy of transferring Covid carriers into care homes. In any functioning democracy such a scandal would lead to severe punishment at the ballot box – but the First Minister mumbles an apology and remains on track to record a big election victory. If this is not proof positive that Holyrood is not working, what is?

I would suggest that Holyrood has failed and Scotland now needs a policy of double devolution to the regional level. For example, we could have a Greater Glasgow Council responsible for nearly everything the Scottish Government does at the moment, with a further level of devolution to local burgh councils below for local services. The region could have full-time members and be funded by a regional income tax, and burghs could be run by councillors working for expenses only and be funded by property taxes and service charges.

And Holyrood need not be abolished: it could assume powers for national policies, for example those relating to infrastructure, national parks and human and civil rights, as well as determining the distribution of national resources. It could also continue to have a prominent ceremonial role, which would keep Nicola Sturgeon happy.

The Scottish Parliament has taken power out of the hands of one unaccountable elite and put it into those of another. It is time to give that power back to the people.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.