THE First Minister has hardly put a foot wrong during her tenure – but a power-sharing deal with the Green Party is a mistake.

Firstly, giving the country a government they didn’t vote for does not go down well.

Secondly, the Green Party wants to put the cart before the horse. Blocking the development of North Sea oil now is a prime example. Sir Ian Wood is correct to say that there is no credible alternative at this time. Massive infrastructure works are required before carbon can be reduced to net zero (whatever that means). When this happens, oil and gas will be squeezed naturally out of existence.

READ MORE: 'Absolutely crazy' for UK to stop drilling for oil says Sir Ian Wood

To cease making roads safer and stop bypassing towns to make them less congested and to reduce air pollution in inhabited areas is also a bad idea. It is not roads that cause pollution, it’s motor vehicles, and that is not going away until there is a proper infrastructure for electrically driven vehicles or an oil alternative.

Finally, one question on electrically powered vehicles: what happens to 40 million batteries when they come to the end of their lives?
Mike Underwood

I’M very angry at Reporting Scotland again with another example of their so-called impartial broadcasting.

The National:

Sir Ian Wood was interviewed on his opinions about Scotland’s need to carry on exploration and production of oil and gas. Needless to say, he has little concern for the planet and would quite happily see his children and grandchildrens’ futures disappear in a puff of smoke quite literally. Where was the BBC’s impartiality here? No one appeared to counter his argument or to give the viewing public an alternative to this nightmare scenario. I hope those watching think carefully about the views of people like him, who it seems only care about the money-makers and the shareholders in his industry.

As to the BBC, are they deliberately carrying out these interviews to enlighten the public or is there some sinister purpose behind them?
Keith Taylor
Via email

I AM afraid that the SNP hierarchy is under an illusion if they believe the majority of Scots know, or care, about power grabs, the effects of Brexit or climate change.

They seem to believe if they delay long enough people will change their views. Most people are non-political and they just want their lives, and their families’ lives, to be a little better. They may not care who runs their local councils as long as it gets the work done. It is a mistake to think the effects of Brexit will alter their feelings, we will all just get used to the new “normal”. Unless someone, or some movement, can persuade the majority soon that life under independence will improve their situation, I am afraid that those of us who believe in independence will be disappointed.
J McKenzie

I THANK Stephen Tingle for his gratitude to me in raising the need for a comprehensive and full national discussion on an independent Scotland’s relationship with Nato. However, I cannot agree with his belief that the EU holds the answer to Scotland’s defence needs. Firstly, because as a party Scotia Future believes that the geo-political ambitions of the EU would compromise the sovereignty of an independent Scotland, and secondly, the EU makes clear in all its official pronouncements on the shape of the proposed European Defence Union (their words, not mine) that the EDU operational policy would be coterminous with that of Nato.

Scotland will need to face this challenge soon enough but the established neutral countries within the EU – Ireland, Austria, Malta, Finland and Sweden – will need to face it first. Whether these countries, with their own distinctive history and rationale for a stance of neutrality, want to rush headlong into the arms of a militarised EU is far from certain, which is why Scotia Future believes joining this armed neutrality bloc within Partnership for Peace would be the best option for an independent Scotland.

I hope Mr Tingle might ponder that the stark alternative to this is the status quo of more Scots regiments receiving a macabre supply of cannon fodder from the schemes of the Central Belt to die at the behest of whatever is the latest fashionable military adventure sanctioned by Washington DC and Westminster. The fact that this might happen under the Saltire rather than the Union Jack does not in any way represent the principle of Scottish independence to me.
Cllr Andy Doig
Scotia Future

THE rich and in particular the landed aristocracy do not believe the grants they get are benefits, but guess what they are (Johnson tells benefits claimants to rely on their own ‘efforts’ instead of welfare, August 26)? The Royal Family, who get £65 million a year from the state, plus last year an additional £20m to pay for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, think they are hard done to.

Yet these folk who live off grants (a benefit by another name) probably look down on the working poor.

The National: Boris Johnson

Then we have Boris Johnson who as reported in numerous newspapers, not least The National (July 30), said he could not live on his salary of £157,372 a year. He, according to press reports, if they are accurate, sought to have his nanny paid for by donors, had his takeaway bill paid for by donors and had a free holiday at a billionaire pal’s villa abroad.

I cannot believe the sheer arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy of Boris and co. Boris’s comments are unbelievable – the sheer arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy of this man is staggering and still folk including in Scotland vote for him and his party.
Frederick Hall
Posted online