It’s not difficult to see why people are now shifting towards Yes

All the health experts and Holyrood Government ministers have shown empathy and clear communication and answered journalists with patience and honesty. It is also significant that some key Scottish Government health advisers like Professor Devi Sridhar and Professor Linda Bauld are often invited to provide expert comment on UK-wide news. This is beginning to show reluctant Yes voters that Scotland has knowledgeable experts and capable management in one of the worst pandemics.

This is in contrast to the cronyism, corruption and ineptitude shown by the Westminster Government.

Conversely, we have also had to go to Westminster to seek clarification on whether we could have furlough support after December 2, when the Prime Minister believes England will come out of lockdown. Despite the interventions of both Scottish Conservative MPs and SNP members, we still have no clarity on whether the Scottish Government can rely on furlough support if they have to lockdown on December 3. This is a bizarre state of affairs and shines a light once again on Scottish economic dependency on Westminster under the current constitutional arrangements.

It is extraordinary that in Scotland we do not have the power to manage this disaster and we do not know if we will be able to protect workers’ jobs or help working families through these hazardous months ahead.

If anyone doubts the Westminster Government’s capacity for honest and straightforward dealings with devolved governments, they must now realise that this is not going to happen.

For Andrew Wilson of the Growth Commission to imagine that we will all get round a table and work out an amicable settlement with the UK Government and the Governor of the Bank of England is pie in the sky!

All the different strands of the Yes movement need to continue post-indy preparations for a Government-controlled central bank, a Scottish constitution and a Scottish currency written into the constitution to protect it for our children and grandchildren.

Maggie Chetty

Glasgow

I REFER to a question raised during the PM’s Covid-19 statement to the House of Commons on Monday.

The Westminster leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford MP, posed a question which would have enormous ramifications for millions, yet should not have been necessary. It was also a question that had been aired over and over again, by all opposition parties at Westminster – that of the extension of the furlough scheme as the country continues to tackle Covid-19.

Why has it taken England going back into lockdown for this lifeline furlough scheme to be extended? Where do the devolved nations stand on the need for future furlough after December 2? The PM was not clear on this issue.

Are the Government backbenchers supporting this move? This mini extension to furlough in light of England’s lockdown will be a welcome relief for millions, but needs to go much further.

Furlough needs to be extended throughout the UK for a further six months with immediate effect if families and individuals are going to survive this awful pandemic.

Catriona C Clark

Falkirk

WHEN polls showing 58% SNP to 19% hard-hearted Tory Party for the constituency vote, if carried through to the list vote for whatever reason, they show that “Both Votes SNP” could deliver a pro-independence SNP majority.

It means that the lead SNP list member should be elected, and also that the second SNP list member is also in play for election.

Given that the opposition parties (whether has-beens, new, previously under the radar, or decrepit), with the exception of the Greens, are disinclined to oppose Brexit or positively seek it, the list vote has essentially become EUref2.

So, the d’Hondt system has now effectively become two votes: one for the governance of Scotland, and one for the inclusion or otherwise of Brexit within such governance.

Clearly both votes SNP is the optimal for returning to EU membership with an independent Scotland, with the electorate seeing these as interdependent, but also seeing the alternative as Brexit in the UK, for which some will still vote for, intentionally or otherwise.

Stephen Tingle

Greater Glasgow

KEVIN McKenna hit the nail on the head with his piece about politicising the poppy on November 4 (“Poppies politicised by those echoing the evil forces we fought to defeat”).

I stopped wearing a red poppy some years ago for much the same reasons as he raised. Instead, I wear a white poppy to remember all who have died or suffered as a result of war, both combatants and non-combatants. Not only does the wearing of a white poppy serve as a poignant sign of remembrance, it also acts as a symbol of a commitment to peace and can be a great conversation starter for those who are curious about the alternative colour.

Whilst I respect those who chose to wear a red poppy, I would encourage all who, like Kevin, feel increasingly uncomfortable with the degradation of its purity to wear a white one instead. Remembrance is important, jingoism is not.

Carl J Irvine

Inverurie

THANK you Kevin McKenna for putting into words what I have been thinking for some years. I will not be wearing a poppy this year but paying my respects at the local war memorial.

Grace Chilles

via email