Attack on Salmond and SNP is not even a distraction

I have read the original article in full, from its opening line “When your best defence is ‘I’m sleazy but not criminal ...” it develops into an all-out attack on Alex Salmond and the SNP based on his assumption that “the party is now divided into two camps [that] can only tear each other apart”.

The most revealing insight is his comment on Alex Salmond’s acquittal in the High Court . “Alex Salmond was charged with 13 counts by nine women. Their testimony was described by those in court as powerful. The jury thought differently. They weren’t persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that he crossed the sleaze/criminal line.”

He manages to include Alex Salmond’s character, conspiracies, a Labour revival in 2021, and even the coronavirus in his doom-and-gloom prognosis for the SNP.

If Alex Salmond does take action it would probably be on the process that eventually culminated in his aquittal. During that time the Civil Service disciplinary procedure appeared to have been rewritten specifically to allow retrospective action for this case.

SNP members are now so accustomed to media predictions of imminent splits in the party that the nationwide publicity given to Alex Bell’s article is not even a distraction from getting on with the day job.

John Jamieson, South Queensferry

KATHLEEN Nutt’s article, Former special adviser: ‘They wanted to stop Salmond’ (The National, March 27) is interesting as it develops the concept that it is an SNP problem.

Perhaps the whole trial was about trying to stop independence and, if so, what part did those who are implacably opposed to the concept of independence play in the extremely expensive show trial?

The case for the prosecution was well orchestrated, but who was the conductor? I also wonder if any of the women who brought the charges have had second thoughts and wonder if they had been duped into becoming involved. Alex Salmond has been to hell and back but has again moved the case for independence forward.

The outcome has, in my view, been that the whole affair has not weakened but strengthened the case for independence. It has also highlighted the danger to men if the accusers are allowed to remain anonymous. What man would wish to work alongside any of these women or attend any social function where any of them were present?

Are men not also entitled to protection?

Thomas L Inglis, Fintry

WHEN Boris Johnson was crowned leader by the Tories last year, it was foreseeable from his previous debacles he was unfit to lead from day one. As he freely admitted, he is the most “banker friendly” politician today.

His response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been worse than could have been predicted.

Johnson knew the coronavirus was coming. The warnings from China were stark. Johnson could have mobilised. He could have ensured the NHS was well stocked with ventilators and personal protective equipment (PPE) such as proper surgical masks, and he could have followed WHO advice to test the population. He could have brought in a lockdown much earlier.

He did none of these things. Instead Johnson and his chief Dominic Cummings preferred dithering and sacrificing the lives of the population to save the economy.

Since 2010 the Tories have cut 17,000 beds from the NHS in England.

Johnson followed the highly dubious “herd immunity” approach. This approach would have let a virus with no known cure and therefore no natural immunity rampage through the population.

When Johnson did finally speak to lock the country down his message was confused and garbled. It was unclear who was an “essential worker”. Johnson offered nothing but calculated contempt.

The situation today is that NHS surgeons and consultants in England are having to buy DIY masks from chains such as B&Q.

Established firms who actually make ventilators have been sidelined. Instead James Dyson (despite having no experience of making ventilators) has been commissioned to make them from scratch within a few weeks. Dyson just happens to be a prominent Brexiteer and major Tory donor.

The EU have a scheme to bulk buy ventilators. Yet Boris Johnson withdrew from it, preferring narrow British nationalism over saving lives.

Boris Johnson is a clown, safe only for amusement. This is reflected in Johnson’s negligent response to Covid-19.

Some British Unionists laughably claim the Tories’ useless coronavirus response “proves” that Scotland can’t be independent.

If this is their idea of competent, I would hate to see what they imagine a disaster would be.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

THE Victorian Loch Katrine water supply network that serves Glasgow was essentially paid for by the wealthy and built by the poor, but implemented in large part as a result of the wealthy of Glasgow also dying of cholera, as well as the poor.

With Covid-19, perhaps the wealthy will once again realise that they and their wealth, and indeed their health, will only be secure if the poor are included. With vast continental areas of virtual Brexit trade opportunity now in lockdown, even the need for food rationing is now being mooted. Universal basic income (UBI) is now optimistically on the horizon for the many, but not necessarily the few.

The First Minister of Scotland has made it quite clear that things will not be the same after Covid-19 – and rightly so – likely including re-introducing resilience that the UK Government has been reducing for the past 40 years, likely undoing austerity imposed by the UK government(s) over the last few decades, and likely reconnecting with the EU from which Scotland is being amputated by the UK Government.

UBI will only happen when both the poor of Scotland consider that they have a share in the vision of a secure independent Scotland, and the wealthy of Scotland finally accept that we are all in this together.

For the avoidance of doubt, the ghastly and expensive Trident nuclear deterrent that is currently designated by the UK Government to provide security to the peoples of the UK is not what I have in mind to deal with Covid-19, but UBI most definitely is.

What would be of particular interest, however, would be the level of UBI need, varied across the 32 council areas of Scotland, and whether this variance should indeed be applied.

What is becoming clear is that UBI would assist in the restart and recovery of Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) across Scotland, and/or the UK, as well as providing some resilience against a further wave(s) of Covid-19 or similar.

Like austerity, UBI is a political choice, but with the demonstrable failure of austerity littering the cemeteries across the UK over the last decade, and more so in recent weeks, perhaps now is the time to move towards implementation, at least in Scotland if not the UK as a whole.

Stephen Tingle, Greater Glasgow

ONE of the most depressing interviews in the media over the past couple of days must surely be the one with the owner of a food storage warehouse who was being interviewed over his problem.

We saw pictures of the interior of the storage facility. It was stacked to the roof with pallets of prepacked food. The owner’s problem was that it was within two days of the expiry of the sell-by dates of the individual items. He feared he was going to have to dump it all.

At a time when there are hundreds of thousands of people hungry and unable to access sufficient food, this situation, if accurately reported, must be the biggest disgrace in our country right now.

Surely any and all such stocks of food should be immediately handed over to the many charitable organisations desperate for supplies to help people survive. Be sensible folks; use-by and sell-by dates are only fairly useless marketing implements to protect big business against possible litigation.

I have just opened a packet of supermarket shallots with a “best before” date of December 11, and they are as good as when they were packaged. Remember the advice from years long gone – if it isn’t growing “spots” it’s fine; and if it is, well just scrape them off and get on with life.

George M Mitchell, Dunblane

THE National has recently carried several stories on companies switching their alcohol production to hand sanitisers in the current emergency. HMRC has helped by easing the usual very strict rules on the use of spirit and denatured alcohol.

However, hand sanitisers are themselves tightly regulated to ensure efficacy (they don’t work if the alcohol concentration is too low or too high) and safety (handling large quantities of a flammable liquid like alcohol during manufacture requires care and some grades of denatured alcohol contain harmful additives).

Companies who routinely make hand sanitisers have the necessary experience and facilities but they also know that they cannot legally use new sources of alcohol in current or new products.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the relevant regulator, could change all this in a few minutes by issuing a derogation from the usual requirements, but even now they have not done this, unlike their equivalent agencies in many other European countries.

Why is HSE by inaction forcing responsible companies to choose between helping people or breaking the law? Why has HSE not taken simple steps to provide looser regulation to give some limited assurance that new hand sanitiser products are safe and effective?

Mike Baldry, Haddington

IF there is a silver lining to this pandemic, it would be that it has opened a lot of people’s eyes to the irrationality and waste of war and military spending. Governments around the world are mortgaging the living standards of future generations to find enough cash to provide the basics of food and shelter for populations in enforced idleness while holding armaments that cost billions – for the sole purpose of wiping out other human beings. Madness.

Geoff Naylor, Winchester, Hampshire