Election debate More fuel us

It is said that a nation that forgets its history is doomed to repeat it. This was brought to mind when I read of the Tory gains in the local election and the projection this might feed through to the general election.

Is one generation all it takes to forget the loss of shipbuilding, of the steel industry, coal mining, the railway network, and the imposition of the poll tax - do I need to go on?

What will an increased Tory majority mean for us as they determinedly insist on a hard Brexit? Probably increases in National Insurance and other taxes, the disappearance of our financial services industry, perhaps even the tourist industry as the landlords reclaim the privacy of their grouse moors – what else might be in their nasty plans? I shudder to think!

If you doubt why I should think this, consider the evidence of the last two years. The weakest in society have been under a sustained attack: we have had the effects of the bedroom tax, cuts in benefits (PIP at its lower levels has only been increased by 40 pence a week), and pensions, which lost a great deal of value during substantial wage increases and now under threat of losing the triple lock guarantee.

Meanwhile, we are treated daily to the disingenuous words of Miss Davidson as she fails to produce any policy details other than her one trick pony of opposition to a second referendum. This is not a vision for our future but a drive to the destruction of aspiration.

She may be media smart hav- ing been trained by the BBC, but she fails to realise that ‘the day job’ of an opposition leader is to provide constructive criticism: that is, it is not to bang on about her obsession.

Likewise, the other obsessioncomes from mrs may who craves a large majority. But surely a majority is a majority. What can she achieve with a large majority that she cannot with her current one. Yes, the removal of any effective opposition.

To me, this implies two points: Mrs May is exhibiting a lack of confidence in her own abilities and a disdain for any opinion other than her own and definitely no appreciation of the value of any criticism, let alone that of constructive criticism. Are these not the traits of dictatorship?

I can only hope that we come to our senses and remember the lessons of history before 8 June, as it is coming fast.

BRIAN RATTRAY Gylemuir Road, Corstorphine,

Edinburgh As the general election draws nigh, is there anything new in the SNP message to voters? Precious little I would say.

As a regional administration they have singularly failed to govern Scotland effectively. Their record in most of the devolved areas, whether it be education, health, policing, welfare, farm subsidies has been dire. And as for the state of the Scottish economy - enough said, deficit of some £16 billion, equivalent to almost 10 per cent of GDP. And where would we be without the support of the Barnett Formula?

And yet their battle-cry is still ‘independence!’

In 2014 Alec Salmond only managed to persuade 44.5 per cent of the electorate to vote ‘yes’. Support for independence has deteriorated even further.

Since it is highly unlikely that the present SNP administration would be any more successful in a second independence referendum poll, then why try to put the guid folks of Scotland through the whole divisive process again? After all. was the 2014 event not supposed to be ‘a once in a generation’ poll.

Surely we must ask ourselves, can the SNP really be trusted? They failed to persuade us in 2014, and since then have not been by any means successful in administration. ROBERT IG SCOTT Northfield, Ceres, Fife It was with some relief that I read in Wednesday’s Scotsman that Ruth Davidson is “open” to reviewing the socalled Rape Clause.

Clearly general opinion across Scotland and the vote in the scottish parliament has had some effect on her and her party’ s desire( or otherwise) to support this draconian measure.

However, there is one very pertinent question arising... How does Ms Davidson intend to “review” this policy?

The policy was proposed by the UK government and passed by the UK parliament. However, Ms Davidson is not even a member of the UK parliament, far less a member of the Cabinet, where she would be in a position to argue the case for the review, or even better, removal of this policy.

DAVID PATRICK Thirlestane Road, Marchmont,

Edinburgh How ironic but predictable that the Green Party has decided to deny its supporters their democraticrights to vote for their party in the general election This from the party that supports the First minister repeatedly claiming she has a democratic mandatefrom the scottish people to call for indyref2.

Six Green MSPS, none of whom actually won a constituency seat, treat the democratic decision of the Scottish people in indyref1 with contempt. Democracy Green style, indeed.

BILL BLAIR Fairmilehead, Edinburgh. Graham Hay (Letters, 10 May) is right to suggest that Mrs May’s choice of a ‘hard boiled, cliff-edged’ version of Brexit is likely to be a failure in all respects. The bellicose rhetoric of the Tory press adds to the inflaming of passions on all sides, which will make sensible deal-making difficult.

Mrs May is a natural, hotheaded Brexiteer, not a moderate one. Her wish to take immigration down to tens of thousands would be laughable if it were not so patently damaging to industries like engineering, which are desperate to find skilled workers now that European workers are having misgivings about coming to the UK.

It is precisely because Brexit may harm the economy badly that a referendum on independence is valid. Okay, if Mr Johnston and Mr Gove are proved right and Brexit is a great success, then the same majority against independence as before will sup- port remaining in UK. Hatred of nationalism seems to be behind the wishful thinking that Brexit will turn out well. After all, it was only a year ago that Scottish Tories supported Mr Cameron’s view when he said Brexit would be a disaster.

Instead of wishful thinking we need to realise that when you are placed between the devil and the deep blue sea you need to have choices, and make them sensibly based on the facts as they come up.

ANDREW VASS Corbiehill Place, Edinburgh One of the first duties of a modern government should be to ensure cheap and reliable energy but our fixation with renewables has resulted in levies which mandate the use of its expensive and intermittent forms of Heath-robinson technology.

In 2016, the combined costs of the Levy Control Framework and carbon taxes were over £9 billion. In fact official figures show the Climate Change Act will cost us over £300 billion by 2030 – a green tax of £875 per annum per household.

The consequence has been that Scotland has the highest rate of fuel poverty in Europe and one of the benefits of Brexit is that it allows us to abandon the Renewables Directive. REV DR JOHN CAMERON Howard Place,

St Andrews