HAVING longed for independence for more than half a century, I’d become impatient to the point of near desperation for another independence referendum. Last year I went online to listen to Nicola’s National Conference speech, wondering just what she might say and whether my frustrations would continue.

However, as I listened to her speak, as I saw her hold the delegates spellbound by the power of her oratory, I was inspired by the resonance and the passionate sincerity of her case for independence. I understood her logic and began to realise the wisdom of her appeal for patience.

As she left the stage to a standing ovation, I found myself convinced that this remarkable woman would, indeed, in her own time and in her own way, lead Scotland to independence.

I confess, though, that since then I, yet again, lapsed into an immature, petulant impatience, repeatedly criticising Nicola for not acting with more urgency in the matter of indyref2 (more properly “ScotRef”). Yet I just know, in my heart of hearts, that after she makes her speech at this month’s National Conference, I will, once again, be a devoted fan of our First Minister, and yes... she will lead Scotland to independence.
Billy Scobie
Alexandria

WHILE the impending disaster of Brexit consumes all our thoughts and excludes everything else, I fear that there is another, possibly equally serious, threat being allowed to creep up on us unnoticed, a threat embodied by David Mundell.

While we are all aware of the number of times he has threatened to resign, but never done it, and much ordure has been flying in his direction as a result, I have yet to hear any analysis of why he acts thus. Probably the common assumption is that he is just rolling over to please his mistress, out of cowardice or weakness. Take a step further – why so desperate to please her? A hidden agenda, perhaps?

Why does no-one ask how it is that even previous secretaries of state, such as Michael Forsyth, managed to do immense harm to Scotland from a small office with about a dozen staff, yet Mr Mundell requires new, huge premises with thousands of staff to ensure that Scotland is completely ignored? Why does no-one ask what new duties these minions fulfil? After all, devolution decreased the responsibilities of this Office.

We need to think back to the power grab stushie, now almost forgotten in the current chaos. We have been “re-assured” that the 20-plus powers due to be retained by Westminster, which should, under the devolution settlement, be returned to Holyrood, will eventually – in perhaps seven years – be returned to “Scotland”. Note, not to “Holyrood”. Perhaps less known is the fact that, in Westminster, Mundell’s “Scotland Office” is actually called “the Office of the UK in Scotland”.

Does the link between these two situations not indicate the ulterior motive behind Mr Mundell’s grovelling to this dictatorial Prime Minister? The reward from a Tory Party that never backed devolution anyway stands to be immense for him, as long as he does not blot his copybook – and that does not even take account of his expected future “Honour”. Does this not need a great deal more investigation and public exposure?

Am I just a conspiracy theorist with a nasty, suspicious mind?
L McGregor
Falkirk

STUART Cosgrove’s article in Sunday’s National (The flaws of grading schools in a list in the way you rate your favourite crisps, March 31) was timely and insightful. League tables have no constructive part to play in helping schools to improve or informing parents of the quality of their children’s education.

It has been shown on many occasions that if you take into account factors such as poverty and deprivation rather than simply counting raw exam pass rates, then the tables are flipped on their head. Put simply, it makes no sense to look at any one narrow criterion, especially one that takes no account of the key factors which are correlated with educational underachievement.

Stuart is right to look at the country’s largest education authority, Glasgow. Notwithstanding the recent excellent report for the work it has been doing to close the educational gap, more affluent local authorities will always top league tables which focus only on exam results.

When you ask parents what they look for in a school, a range of issues emerges – ethos, quality of relationships, wellbeing, absence of bullying, extracurricular activities which include both sport and culture (particularly music), to name but a few. Of course, they care about achievement – not just narrow attainment – but they want their children to be nurtured, to be challenged and to be supported to “be all they can be”.

Some years ago, the Scottish Government took a brave decision not to publish league tables based solely on exam results. However, some newspapers seem incapable of resisting the opportunity to fill the void, with the inevitable focus on schools in leafy suburbs, albeit with a nod in the direction of individual schools in more disadvantaged areas which are bucking the trend.

What we need is a more nuanced way of ensuring schools are meeting the needs of all of their young people. Raw scores are simply too crude a measure. We need a national conversation involving all the stakeholders to form a blueprint for education in an independent Scotland.

Curriculum for Excellence gives us a good framework, focusing on enabling all young people, from nursery to secondary school, to be successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens. Add into the mix creativity, resilience and collaboration with others, and we can build a system in which high-stakes exams cease to dominate the entire agenda.
Brian Boyd
Emeritus professor of education

IN Sunday’s National (March 31) there was an excellent article on tackling domestic abuse by guest columnist Caitlin Logan. The article coincided with the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act which came into force on April 1. It now means the offence of “coercive control” can be prosecuted within Scotland.

The subject of “abuse” also made me think about recent events within and outside Parliament where SNP MPs are clearly abused. In December, Ian Blackford was heckled to go back to Skye. Last Friday, the SNP’s Joanna Cherry was abused by pro-Brexit demonstrators outside Parliament. She was told to go back to her “own country”.

Thank goodness there is a sufficient number of SNP MPs to support each other when abused. Their tenacity to continually speak their minds in such an abusive place is highly commendable. We should all fight against abuse in all its forms and yet it thrives in Parliament. That place which is meant to be the home of democracy! What a joke. I suppose there is some protection by the speaker, John Bercow, but who protects you from him when he is sarcastically abusive?” Nicola, the sooner we are well “shot” of that terrible place the better. Please, please make it soon.
Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus

HAVING just read Martin Hannan’s excellent article about the problems facing Scottish football (Time to root out sectarian problems at their source, April 5), I would have to add that the other day I listened to probably the most irresponsible interview I’ve ever heard on the topic on Radio Scotland’s evening news programme.

A woman representing Fans Against Criminality, who, along with other supporter organisations (mainly affiliated to Celtic), campaigned against the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act (OBFA), was given air time to explain that the current problems in Scottish football were basically being exaggerated by journalists and the police.

She seemed to think that the use of pyrotechnics was not a cause for concern, never mind the coin throwing and the occasional bottle.

The fact of the matter is that until we resolve the problem of sectarianism in Scotland, there will always be a minority among the fan base of certain clubs who will cause trouble within and outwith the stadia.

It seems to me that Fans Against Criminality campaigned against the OBFA mainly because it would criminalise fans singing sectarian songs and therein lies the root of the problem.

Until clubs tackle the sectarian element within their own support, the problems experienced over the course of this season will simply carry on.

I have asked my own club, Hearts, to set up a fans’ working group to tackle both sectarianism and racism among our support, but to date the club seems reluctant to progress the issue.

Personally, I want my club to be welcoming for people of all cultures, religions and political beliefs and it has been particularly encouraging at recent games that any attempt at sectarian singing has been booed by a majority of other fans present.

Nobody, however, following stabbings in the streets of Glasgow, can now say that we don’t have a major problem on our hands and, unfortunately, this is a sad reflection of the divisions within our wider society.

I certainly don’t accept the views of Fans Against Criminality as it is now beyond the time for some fresh thinking and legislation which help all concerned with the beautiful game.
Dave MacIntyre
Edinburgh

IN previous letters I have made it clear that I used to have the greatest respect for Jim Fairlie and his work for Scottish independence.

It is therefore with sadness that we are treated to his complete lack of self-perception when he accuses me of an ad hominem attack on him. He has totally failed to acknowledge that I was stimulated to respond when he resorted to saying that SNP supporters who disagree with his stance on Europe “are among the most ill-informed, mis-informed or not informed at all” about the EU. His remarks about another contributor being the only person to fail to understand that he was being facetious when he referred to the EU as a “bastion of international socialism” were superfluously patronising and arrogant. Indeed, it was this and the earlier remarks that spurred me to take Mr Fairlie to task, and he needs to take heed of the old adage that “if you can’t take it – don’t dish it out”.

This was what was key for me, as nobody is trying to say that people like Jim Fairlie are not entitled to have opinions contrary to the central SNP strategy on Europe or shouldn’t be able to express them. He complains: “There’s a refusal of the SNP and its followers to present the reality of the EU and its treaties.” This is a discussion to which Jim Fairlie has returned frequently and it has been discussed at various levels ad nauseam. The problem is that he has not received the response he wants because there are people at all levels of the SNP who simply do not agree with his views and I am one of them. It became clear a long time ago that there will never be the right answer for him, because he is not prepared to consider that his opinions might just possibly be wrong. For example, one of the central tenets of his argument is that members of the EU cannot follow an independent economic strategy because they are shackled to the Euro. He notes that there only 19 members of the Eurozone, but ignores that the other nine are not. The fact that Jean Claude Juncker has said that no joining country will be forced into the Euro against its will seems to have passed him by.

In any case, the question of currency is one which could be resolved in time in an independent Scotland. If the independence movement can desist from internecine squabbling long enough to achieve it.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh