YET another glossy leaflet from DRoss and the Baroness via Royal Mail this week, this time a threefold, poster-sized, full colour one. Where do they get the money for it? It was also cunningly designed so that, whichever side was up when it landed on the mat, the message was the same –How to stop another independence referendum.

Included were cuttings from newspapers which in some cases, though not exactly untrue, conveyed a false impression, in particular “SNP to plough £600k into indyref”, with no clarity that this was from PARTY funds, not public. That prompted me to wonder just what the grand total of expenditure was on the now disbanded Union Unit, set up specifically to fight the Unionist side of the constitutional question, and whether this came from party funds or the public purse. I think we should be told.

This leaflet contained no fewer than 18 mentions of referendum, 16 of SNP and 15 of independence. If the virus is the priority over everything else, how on earth do DRoss and the Baroness have time to concentrate on an independence referendum to this extent? One can only assume that it is to the exclusion of everything else, in particular, the formation of policies, as there are none either in this or any other leaflet they have delivered.

This morning on GMS, however, he did actually come close to a policy. In his reply to one caller, he recommended using their vote, not for the party of their choice, but for the candidate most likely to keep the SNP out. In other words, to vote not for the person/party the voter would like to see in government, but for someone who may help to prevent the government that DRoss does NOT want!

He has constantly criticised the perfectly legitimate setting up of Alba to fulfil a specific purpose – a type of trigger that has seen many parties set up in the past – as “ gaming the system”. Is urging someone to vote for a negative which he, DRoss wishes, instead of the party of choice, not genuinely “gaming the system”?

L McGregor
Falkirk

WHAT a contrast in this week’s mailbag! A Conservative leaflet which mentions independence 24/TWENTY FOUR times. Policies? NONE. A Labour leaflet which mentions independence ZERO times but lists FIVE policies. I’m almost tempted to give Labour a List vote! But I won’t; both my votes will go to the SNP.

Ian Gilbert
Pitlochry

THE arrival of the Alba Party has seen many comments about the merits or otherwise of the “Both Votes SNP” mantra. Many people now realise that the only reason to vote SNP 1&2 is because the SNP does not believe that it will win nearly all the constituency contests, despite what every recent opinion poll suggests. It’s an expensive insurance policy to vote SNP 1&2 because it’s almost certainly unnecessary and will only gift seats to Unionists.

Even so, some still see Both Votes SNP as sensible in the South Scotland region. These are generals fighting the last war. In 2016 the SNP won only four constituencies in the region and consequently gained three regional seats to give a total of seven independence-supporting MSPs out of 16. If the SNP had won more constituencies the balancing effect of the d’Hondt system would have reduced the number of SNP list MSPs and left the SNP still with seven MSPs. The only way the SNP could have gained more seats in South Scotland would have been to win eight or all nine constituencies.

Alba wasn’t around in 2016 but if it had been, what difference would it have made? Looking at various scenarios suggest that the results would at worst have been the same, with seven pro-indy MSPs. More wins for the SNP in the constituencies and a solid vote for the Alba party would have resulted in between eight and eleven pro-independence MSPs in a region where there was significant support for the Tories and the Union.

2021 is not 2106. We won’t know the results until we know the results but four constituencies where the SNP lost in 2106 are marginals. These past results and current opinion polls suggest that the SNP will gain constituencies in South Scotland and hence have few if any regional seats, just like elsewhere in Scotland. Belief, slogans and opinion are all very well but the objective facts send a clear message. The SNP by itself cannot obtain a majority of pro-independence MSPs in South Scotland. Voting for Alba on the regional list and for the SNP in the constituencies is the only feasible way for voters in South Scotland, as elsewhere in our country, to send more MSPs supporting Scottish independence to Holyrood.

Mike Baldry
Haddington

CHANNEL 4 had a really depressing piece this week which made me totally despair about the ways of this UK Government. Yet again!

Apparently one of the hundreds of projects to be affected by the cuts to the overseas aid budget is one that is actually nearing completion at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. This project has involved the UK’s only breeding colony of tsetse flies. They have been used to research ways into establishing cheap and effective methods to stop the spread of malaria, dengue fever and other diseases carried by insects in parts of Africa. Clearly a very honourable mission that will hopefully save many lives.

However, four years into the project, around £5 million already spent and just months away from completion, due to the aid cut this project will be abruptly curtailed. All that money and endeavour will effectively go to waste just because the project can’t be funded for a few more months. To me this is yet another example of how right-wing, hard-hearted Tories behave. They have no doubt long since come to the cynical conclusion that such actions will not detrimentally affect their base vote. It’s so depressing.

I hope in my lifetime we never have a Scottish government that would act in such a callous, cold manner. This example and many others make it imperative that after all the votes are counted in May’s election, there will be an SNP majority government which will hopefully lead to our independence after a successful referendum.”

Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife

EACH year, the Stockholm Peace Research Institute publishes the number of nuclear warheads countries have (www.sipri.org).

With the UK’s deterrent based in Scotland, the 2020 statistics indicate that in terms of nuclear warheads per million population, Scotland (39.1 warheads / million) comes second after Russia (43.7 warheads / million). However, the increase in warhead number proposed by Westminster last month will see Scotland overtake Russia’s number one position.

In terms of nuclear warheads per land area, Scotland again currently comes second – this time after Israel ( Scotland 2.76 warheads/thousand square kilometres versus Israel 4.09).

Perhaps these figures can be massaged to make them sound less frightening – some warheads may be away being MOTd in Aldermaston, and some may be deployed on submarines on patrol. But of course other countries may also have their warheads deployed elsewhere allowing their figures to be similarly “adjusted”.

The clear thrust of these figures is that Scotland is grossly “over-nuked”, and this raises many questions. How many Scots know of their country’s super-power status? How many countries have their nuclear deterrent right next to their largest centre of population? Will Unionists in Glasgow feel safer when the number of nuclear warheads on their doorstep is increased - for make no mistake, this is what a Unionist vote will result in.

Kerr Walker
Alford

IN the past few weeks there have been various stories about the military of Myanmar (formerly Burma) attacking and bombing Karen people and relentless persecution of them.

My father, Pvt A Wilson, fought in the Burma campaign in World War Two with the Cameronians. He rarely spoke of the war, but would always say that if it hadn’t been for the Ghurkas and Karens he would never have got home. He told us they were always told that if they got separated from the main group and ended up behind enemy lines, never go anywhere near the Burmese people, as if they say allied troops they would contact the Japanese and turn them in. The rule was: if behind enemy lines, try to contact Karens or Chinese, who would take them back to the allies.

The Ghurkas fought because they were in the British Army. The Karens fought as the British Government promised them that the when the Japanese were beaten, the Karens would be given independence – their own land, free from Burmese domination.

The Karens kept their side of the bargain and fought with the allies til Japan was defeated. Britain walked away without fulfilling the promise to the Karens. The war was over for Britain, but is still ongoing for the Karens.

I supposed it’s not news that Britain is not trustworthy.

Thomas Wilson
Edinburgh

I SOME time think if we need a film for inspiration to help us on the road to independence it’s not Braveheart, it’s The Wizard of Oz. We need the “well off” to get a conscience, the scared to get a heart and become a bit braver, and the gullible to get a brain. Then we’ve got independence. We were too close the last time. So it’s not the Braveheart film we need for inspiration! Let’s not make the same mistake this time round!

Robin MacLean
Fort Augustus

IT was a pleasure to read in your letters page how Alba should be pronounced properly, and some in BBC Scotland have made the distinction. Hopefully they, Scotrail and STV etc will get round to pronouncing our capital city properly and refrain from the absurd “EDINBRUH” for the correct Edinburgh. “Holyrood” is a no-brainer!

James Cameron Stuart
Falkirk