What bombshell? Half of the UK shared Nicola Sturgeon’s opinion of Boris Johnson

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

There are cogent reasons to criticise Sturgeon but we should not let our animosity run awry (PA)

Come off it! It is hardly a “bombshell” that Nicola Sturgeon’s opinion of Boris Johnson was so dire. Half the UK shared that view. It is also naive to be shocked that a government would consider the political implications of such unprecedented circumstances. There are cogent reasons to criticise Sturgeon, but we should not let our animosity run awry, it merely looks ridiculous.

Joanna Pallister

Durham

Flavour of the culture

The Covid inquiry does not show Sturgeon’s regime in a flattering light. We have yet to see the big political fish under questioning, but their allies in the civil service positions have given a flavour of the culture that prevailed. Jason Leitch, in my opinion, went for an arrogant and defiant look, while admitting that some of his chat messages had been “flippant”.

Ken Thomson, the former Scottish government director general for strategy and external affairs, was reduced to squeaky gibberish. Alex Ferguson had a name for that. His appearance was a million miles away from the confident arrogance of the Thomson who some years ago boasted about getting access to Whitehall “to talk about breaking up the kingdom”.

Gregor Smith was content to be judge and jury for what was or was not “pertinent” information and what should be deleted. Did he not think Heather Hallett would be capable of making that decision?

Contrast that with the dignified sorrow and fury expressed by the women of Scottish Covid Bereaved. They have spoken eloquently of their utter frustration with the secrecy and the destruction of evidence that might have given them an explanation for the deaths of those close to them. One lady said: “This is not what we expect from our senior clinicians and politicians.”

Let us hope that the politicians can shed more light on this tragedy than the clinicians have done. I am not holding my breath.

Jill Stephenson

Edinburgh

Escaping the circus

In answer to Penny Mordaunt’s questions on Scottish independence: if we gain independence and prove that it can be done satisfactorily, then it won’t be long before Wales and Northern Ireland follow suit.

In addition, tax from various goods such as whisky and seafood would come directly to Scotland, with a huge loss to the UK Exchequer. Scotland’s success rate in pursuing green energy is so much greater than that south of the border that it is likely, in the future, that we could be selling power to England rather than feeding into the National Grid. If the current climate instability continues, with areas of England suffering not only floods but also long periods of drought, water will be piped south – for free, if we are still part of the union!

An independent Scotland would be able to develop a direct link with Europe via improved port facilities. This would also benefit Irish links to the EU, again bypassing the English tax system. Need I go on? The wish to remove ourselves from the circus that is Westminster is not to be sneezed at.

All of the above, and much more, will cost the UK greatly. It’s perhaps not surprising that we have never heard the English MPs explain why they don’t want Scotland to have independence. All they have said is that we won’t survive, and they expect us to believe that they are concerned for our future.

Lisbeth Robertson

Orkney

The seeds that started this

The tragedy in Nottingham and the emerging court case is emotive indeed. The seeds of this and other senseless criminal acts start way back in the early 1980s. I could write pages, but I shall attempt to be brief.

Firstly, the Conservative government closed most of the mental hospitals and rolled out a huge oxymoron named “care in the community”. Cutbacks in mental health treatment have continued to this day, bar the odd tokenistic development. Then fast forward to 2010 and the beginning of harmful austerity, which nearly destroyed the probation service, underfunded the court system (including the CPS), allowed prisons to crumble, and, arguably worst of all, hobbled the police force. If you then throw in the curtailment of youth services you have a disastrous melange.

Depressingly, I doubt our politicians will learn from any of the above and will repeat the same errors in the future.

Robert Boston

Kent

When it comes to crime, we need action

I fully welcome the speech made by Keir Starmer in Milton Keynes on knife crime. It reminded me of a speech given by Tony Blair when he was shadow home secretary under the late John Smith in 1993.

Then, just like now, the Tories had given up on crime not just in terms of their policies but also their philosophy which, under Michael Howard, was a complete failure.

The fact of the matter is that, as Blair and Jack Straw made clear in their first term between 1997 and 2001, crime demanded that communities work as communities to fight it.

That, unfortunately, is impossible at the moment as both Tory cuts and councils up and down the land are unable to invest in or support community schemes because they are so hard up.

This is why we need Starmer’s commitment to match popular concern with a constructive and broad-based program of action.

Geoffrey Brooking

Havant