WITH actions clearly required by both Holyrood and Westminster governments to address the escalating Covid-19 positive numbers in the UK, once again observers have been clamouring for a united response in the UK. This demand is more political than it is practical.

Yet the opportunity to see how Scotland is handling this pandemic as opposed to England was clear for all to see with both the FM and PM not only addressing their respective parliaments but their respective nations on the BBC.

The question is really “what benefit to us Scots would there be in following England’s strategy in dealing with Covid-19?” Clearly none at all, if we compare the actions taken and if the presentations of Nicola Sturgeon and Boris Johnson are anything to go by.

READ MORE: The PM has no words of comfort for those without financial security

It started with the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Officer of England making their presentations to England on the BBC, with no politician present. It has to be said that within five minutes I glazed over very quickly as they baffled their audience with complicated bar charts and graphs that to the average person mean very little. It did look like a lecture as slide after slide was put on the screen.

I am not sure that anyone listening and watching became better informed about the reasons for the strategy on Covid-19 they were about to impose.

Contrast this to Scotland’s National Clinical Director and Chief Medical Officer. Their presentations are “graph-less” yet they – in a simple, sympathetic, easily understated way – get their message across to the public and face an often hostile set of journalists. Much has already been commented on the approaches of both Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon to this pandemic, and it is a generally held view that the FM of Scotland is more visible, more competent and more empathetic than her Westminster counterpart and more likely to be led by the scientific advice she receives.

The recent performances of both to the nation and the parliaments did little to change this perception. I am afraid Boris Johnson’s address came across to the nation as belligerent, blame-orientated and confused. The potential involvement of the army raised a few eyebrows!

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon urges Boris Johnson to consider further coronavirus measures

In sharp contrast, Nicola Sturgeon’s delivery was much softer, full of understanding, sympathy and the need to ask our Scottish nation to bite the bullet once more. The details presented were clear and the challenges facing us were not shied from.

Of course we are not happy, but at least we know where we are and to some degree where we are going.

The FM’s approach is supported and acclaimed by many, including “down south”, yet many only talk about the politics surrounding her decisions, as if its all about breaking up the UK.

Right now I know where I would rather be living, and I know who I wish to lead us through these very worrying and difficult times, don’t you?

Dan Wood

THE latest “offer” by Westminster to assist Scotland in its renewed Beat Covid campaign should be rejected scornfully out of hand. Police Scotland, with the proven active support of the Scottish people, needs no invasion of Westminster, disguised as military aid, to cope with the extra (if required) surveillance arising from current social policy to deal with the spread of Covid-19.

If this is the best Johnson and Patel can do to assist one of the cherished “family of nations”, does it not expose their true motivations? What is the diplomatic phrase descriptive of where to put their offer of “help”?

John Hamilton

IN at least one topic, I had a slightly different interpretation of Ruth Wishart’s column than did Owen Kelly from Stirling in Wednesday’s National.

In his last paragraph, he notes that the way we vote next year will surely determine the kind of Scotland we want our children to grow up in. I don’t know how old he or his bairns are but surely, given the mess our generation have made of the country and indeed, the planet, we should be encouraging them to decide for themselves what kind of Scotland they want to grow up in. As a matter of fact, come indyref2, it does not seem to me to be fair for older folk, who would not have long to live with the result, to have a vote at all.

Allan Anderson

HOW can Kevin McKenna come out with such a ludicrous statement as “to be proud of one’s country is as bizarre a notion as being proud of a chest of drawers” (Labour ditch any hint of traditional values with nod to British patriotism, September 23).

Kevin is inordinately proud of proclaiming his Catholic and working-class roots, which he is entitled to be, but there is good and bad in both of these, just as there is good and bad in every country. What is so wrong with patriotism that it cannot be compatible with his former Labour sympathies?

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: Labour ditch any hint of traditional values with nod to British patriotism

He should not confuse pride in one’s country and patriotism with jingoism, which most certainly can be criticised.

Peter Kerr is another who seems similarly confused (Website comments, September 23). Why is he so keen to tell us he is not a nationalist but favours independence? Is he another of those Labour types who believes all nationalism is bad just because there have been some bad examples from history? Or can he agree with Kevin when the latter acknowledges that Scottish nationalism is not the kind which claims “moral and historical hegemony over other countries” and that it “recognises that we share common values with the rest of humanity”?

Andrew M Fraser