Sturgeon’s deeds have shown she’s the one to lead us
I MUST challenge a statement made by Andrew Dunlop in his piece “Nicola Sturgeon is not the right leader for Scotland’s vital post-covid recovery” (The Herald, April 13).
Baron Dunlop, Conservative member of the House of Lords, states that Nicola Sturgeon has “been no more successful than other UK leaders in mitigating the pandemic’s effects”. However, the overall figures for infection per 100,000 people in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are, respectively, 6785, 6667, 4066 and 6242, showing that Scotland’s rate of infection has been considerably below that of the other nations.
Similarly, the figures for overall Covid deaths (deaths within 28 days of a positive test) per 100,000 people, in the same order, are 199, 175, 139 and 111.
These figures suggest to me that Scotland has had a less severe outcome of the pandemic than England and Wales while Northern Ireland has a higher infection rate than Scotland but a lower death rate, an outcome that may say something about the skills and quality of care in high dependency and ICU units in Northern Ireland’s hospitals.
Ms Sturgeon’s Covid response has been generally to lock down sooner and to reopen more cautiously than Boris Johnson despite there always being political and public pressure to follow Mr Johnson’s lead. He dithered whenever lockdown was urgently required and, to appease the right wing of his party, precipitously reopened the economy. I believe that the above figures vindicate Ms Sturgeon’s more cautious approach. If only she had had more freedom to introduce travel restrictions and border controls much earlier, which I believe was her instinct, had these not essentially been seen as matters reserved to Westminster. Remember the brouhaha when she first suggested that banning non-essential traffic across the England/scotland border might have to be considered.
As this second (or is it third) wave of the pandemic subsides, some may point out that the current low rates of infections and deaths in Scotland are nevertheless higher than the rest of the UK. However, I suggest that this is nothing to do with failing Scottish policy, but instead that the Kent variant, which seems to have caused this wave, swept up from the south, so the effects in Scotland are a week or two behind those in the south of England.
Des Mcghee,
Milngavie.
IN football, during the period preceding a change in manager, there is an often-expressed view that it’s unwise to sack the incumbent before his successor has been identified. I think this applies to Andrew Dunlop’s article. At at no point does he identify a specific successor, and I have to say I wonder why? After all, had he suggested Douglas Ross, a career in stand-up would have been his for the asking.
Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.
The affront to democracy
I AM delighted that weeks before the Scottish Parliament elections, Peter A Russell (Letters, April 13) should forecast “a big election victory” for the SNP. Mr Russell regards this as proof positive that Holyrood is not working, but I very much doubt if his strange and muddled proposals based on a “Greater Glasgow Council responsible for nearly everything the Scottish Government does at the moment” will find favour with the electorate.
Regarding his declaration that it is time to give power back to the people, well, on May 6, voters in Scotland will have the power to elect a Scottish Government entirely of their choosing, unlike at Westminster general elections where Scotland repeatedly gets the governments England elects – which is why, in 2021, Scotland has to suffer a Tory government at Westminster despite not voting Tory since 1955. I would suggest to Mr Russell that the “big election victory” for the SNP he is forecasting has its roots in that affront to democracy, and that if he really wants to give power back to the people, that is where he should be directing his fire.
Ruth Marr, Stirling.
Money question needs answered
I WAS unsurprised to see two letters (April 13) criticising Guy Stenhouse’s article (“Stop blaming England and tell the truth”, The Herald, April 12) but astonished to find no correspondence in support.
To my mind Mr Stenhouse cut to the chase in the sometimes complicated independence debate. In Scotland, every man, woman and child receives £2,000 more in public spending from the UK purse (£10 billion annually) than people in England. He asked: where will that money be found in an independent Scotland or will these additional public services be sacrificed?
A fair question and a sound answer would probably garner support for the nationalist cause. But your two critical contributors ducked it. Instead, they offer the usual obfuscation: nuclear weapons, bad ol’ Westminster, discredited GERS figures, look at Denmark and Finland, and so on.
It seems Mr Stenhouse is spot on. Nationalists won’t address the question he poses.
James Miller, Glasgow.
IT seems that Alex Salmond’s USP for Alba is secession from the UK as quickly as possible after the May election. He claims that this is “not an alternative to economic recovery from Covid, it is an essential part of building a new, different and better society”. This brings us back to the question that separatists need to be asked every time they propose taking Scotland out of the UK: where is the money coming from? Mr Salmond fought the 2014 referendum campaign on the basis of a bonanza from oil revenues. That no longer exists, and in any case oil is a very volatile commodity, dependence on which would be more than rash.
Scotland has many problems, some of which have been exacerbated by SNP mismanagement – shall we mention education, drug deaths, bad judgment on industrial projects? – and has survived the Covid crisis without economic catastrophe because of the funds shared with us by the Treasury in London. I should be interested to see a detailed prospectus from Mr Salmond clarifying how a separate Scotland would raise the money necessary for the recovery that we badly need.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.
Twin paths to anger
NICOLA Sturgeon and Alex Salmond share a policy, but follow different pathways: to create anger and then harvest that anger. Ms Sturgeon has focused upon the prime minister and Mr Salmond upon the English. Mr Salmond’s policy may be more effective longterm, because the English will always be there, whereas Boris Johnson is transient.
William Durward, Bearsden.
Aberdeen is a city of hope
AS the co-leader of Aberdeen City Council, I was disappointed to learn just how ill-informed Mark Smith seems to be regarding his home city (“Who on earth will save my home town?”, The Herald, April 8). It begs the question: when did he last visit our city?
It surely cannot have been in recent years, otherwise he would have knowledge of the multimillion pounds of capital investment the council has made in the city over the last nine years. This investment has included many city centre projects including the upgrade of the
Music Hall; the renovation of the award-winning Art Gallery; the restoration of Provost Skene House and the Union Terrace Gardens regeneration project which will create an inclusive 21st-century park while conserving its Victorian heritage. A number of these projects have come to fruition as a direct result of the bold City Centre Masterplan which the council brought forward in 2015.
I would argue this investment is all the more impressive when you consider Aberdeen City Council generates 80 per cent of the money it requires to run the city through business rates and council tax – unlike Dundee, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, whose infrastructure investment has been heavily subsidised by the Scottish Government, Aberdeen and its citizens have had to selffund these projects.
Whilst we are proud of this investment, we realise Aberdeen, like all other cities, is facing challenges. Habits are changing and the economic impact of Covid-19 is being felt far and wide but, rather than wallowing in the short-term misery of the pandemic or reminiscing about shopping habits of the past, we remain focused on ensuring Aberdeen can overcome the social and economic hurdles that may lie ahead and that is why the council recently committed a further £150m to upgrade and repurpose the city centre.
Like Mr Smith, I do think there is an opportunity for Aberdeen’s future to be inspired by the past but, as Albert Einstein said, “learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow”. I would contend Aberdeen City Council has learned lessons from the past, is helping citizens live for today and through our City Centre Masterplan and climate-change plans, which are designed to make Aberdeen the green energy capital of Europe, there is huge hope for tomorrow.
Jenny Laing, Co-leader Aberdeen City Council.