The SNP is failing to learn the lessons handed out by the voters

LETTERS

TWENTY-ONE SNP MPs, their researchers and office staff lost their jobs in the Genral Election along with the party losing almost half a million votes. Most of these defeats were to the very party Nicola Sturgeon vilifies at every opportunity. Two of these defeats were inflicted on the big beasts of Alex Salmond and Angus

Robertson. Ms Sturgeon is now in a position where she has to be grateful that Theresa May didn’t agree to holding a second independence referendum and also hope this Conservative Government remains in place long enough for SNP to avoid another quick General Election.

It is a remarkable turnaround in fortunes for Ms Sturgeon, but if the electorate was expecting a detailed explanation and some contrition it wasn’t evident in any part of her speech when reflecting on the result of the General Election. She took no ownership or responsibility for her part in a denouement that can be traced to her miscalculation from the moment of the Brexit result, to talk of an independence referendum.

From the outset it seemed a risky strategy, not just because of the significant number of SNP supporters who voted to Leave but the 62 per cent in Scotland who voted to Remain, referred to by Ruth Marr in her letter (June 30), worked out at just over 41 per cent of those entitled to vote. Crucially, when the General Election was called on the issue of Brexit it meant the campaign in Scotland was run through the filter of independence. The responsibility for that rests with the First Minister.

In any other General Election winning 35 seats would be an emphatic win. The irony of Ms Marr, and the SNP, claiming such a victory in terms of seats won by a first past the post system which the party’s election manifesto was committed to scrapping is beyond parody. In the context of the three UK parties in Scotland campaigning against independence it was the share of the vote that would always be crucial and the 63 per cent of those who voted for such parties provided the basis for Ms Sturgeon’s bugle call of retreat.

The conclusion of Ms Sturgeon’s period of reflection however was framed as the electorate being tired by having to make too many political decisions. It seemed a rather cowardly myopic approach, but the Scottish media is by and large rather friendly towards her and no one pressed her on the detail. She could not have been unaware that during the General Election her personal stock, like that of Mrs May, fell considerably. The Scottish electorate were clearly scunnered by more than having to make too many political decisions.

The backdrop to Ms Sturgeon’s difficulty going forward starts from being both First Minister and party leader. It can be two camps whose needs, short-term and long-term can often be in conflict. The difficulties, I would suggest however, run deeper. Her credibility has taken a hit and the threat of a more leftwing Labour Party claiming the austerity agenda means the ground is shifting underneath her. She has taken considerable control over her party, much with good effect, but outwith the return of two former party leaders there is no obvious figure in her cabinet or inner circle of calibre who could pick up the torch.

I suspect MsMarr’s letter reflects something of the anxiety she has for a possible Labour revival but it was disappointing her allegiance should extend to mimicking one of her leader’s dated phrases that she would “take no lessons” from the reader whose letter she was responding to.

There is usually a heavy price to be paid for not learning that every defeat contains the seeds of improvement.

Cameron Munro,

75 Marlborough Avenue, Glasgow.

HEAR, hear to business leaders indicating their discontent with the SNP’s concentration on independence (“Bottled water chief says business ‘fed up’ with independence issue”, The Herald, July 3). Nicola Sturgeon’s top priority and duty is to support the UK Government in securing a good Brexit deal for the whole of Britain.

Independence is an irrelevance.

David Price,

5 Cedarwood Court, Cardross, Dunbartonshire.

FIRST of all, we all wish Douglas J Cotter (Letters, July 3) well with his treatment and would like to add that I have two friends who were recently diagnosed with acute leukaemia. One, a lady in her early forties, has made a complete recovery. The other, a close friend in his late fifties is on the last stage of treatment and it is looking good for him. Both were treated by the NHS at opposite ends of the UK. Both have huge praise for the treatment received.

Secondly, like Mr Cotter, I was ambivalent about independence, but feel the time has passed. The correct time would have been in the early 1970ss when the oil boom was becoming a reality. I was teaching in Aberdeen Technical College at the time and it was plain for all to see the effect oil money had on the area. Just think if, like Norway, we had been able to keep this money in Scotland’s coffers. The Shetland Islands got it right by more or less telling the oil companies that they were welcome to land the oil on their islands, but it will cost them.

Gordon Brown spoke of federalism and this may be the best way forward. It works in the United States where individual states can, if they feel the need, raise the proverbial two digits at the White House. This is happening with increasing regularity now that Donald Trump is the incumbent. Becoming a federal state would still give the overarching cushion of central government.

Ian Smith,

111 Dutch House, Kilmarnock Road, Monkton.

SOMETIMES I wonder at some of your correspondents’ unremitting negativity about all things Scottish. I was amazed that during the independence referendum some seemed to delight in the fall in the price of oil. It would seem their only delight was in telling us how badly this would affect the ability of we Scots to run our own affairs. They preached the end of Scotland’s oil reserves with all the enthusiasm of an evangelical on a soapbox.

How will they manage to spin the good news that the oil reserves west of Shetland could contain one billion barrels of oil (“West of Shetland discovery excites investors”, Herald Business, July 1)? The fact that investors have committed £520 million to develop the field strikes me as exceedingly good news. However, it is my belief that if we discovered that Loch

Ness was in fact 100 per cent single malt whisky these nay-sayers would complain about the cost of bottling it.

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick