ONCE again you have treated us to an image of the current bete noir of the British political scene, the – to me at least – unappealing Dominic Cummings. I am sure his mother loves him, but I would certainly not buy a used car from him!

The whole situation which has developed during the last couple of weeks smacks of a similar atmosphere which took place further east in Europe in the recent past between a couple of blokes by the names of Putin and Medvedev. How has this (to most people) unknown “expert”, suddenly taken centre stage and become the voice of wisdom to which we should all give credence? We apparently now also are lucky enough to have on our payroll one Isaac Levido all the way from Australia – an “election guru”!

Now it seems to me that these people, who have apparently been appointed by our recently installed Prime Minister, are in truth political appointees, and as such, should be on the payroll of the Tory party, and not the government. Have we had any clarification on this point from HM Government?

Whichever organisation bankrolls them, it is vitally important that we all steadfastly refuse to believe anything which they shout at us. The recent apparent acceptance, in certain quarters, of the outpourings of Mr Cummings regarding the certain inevitability of a No-Deal Brexit must be strenuously refuted.

There are still a variety of ways by which No Deal can be thwarted. The recently commenced action in the Court of Session in Scotland is just one of the ongoing routes available. Beyond that I would have thought that if the Prime Minister were to lose a vote of confidence in parliament, it would be incumbent on him, under the much vaunted “traditional” rules of the House to hot-foot it to the Palace to tender his resignation.

He would then carry on as caretaker until a new candidate received a vote of confidence in the House. Failure to find such a person within the time stipulated should then automatically trigger an election.

Surely it cannot be right that a defeated Prime Minister just keeps going until he decides when it would be convenient to call an election? What input, if any, does Speaker Bercow have available to him in all of this?

George M Mitchell

WELL, what a kerfuffle with the Labour Head Office No 2 saying (in an attempt to recruit disaffected Labour independence supporters, back to voting Labour to ensure the Tories remain in power) that Labour would not stand in the way of a Second independence referendum!

This would be equivalent to me saying that when I win the EuroMillions jackpot, I will do good things with my win. You can see that regardless of all the good intentions, I have no realistic chance of winning the jackpot, especially as I do not play “The Tax on Fools”.

The Labour branch manager in Scotland, Mr Dick Leonard, the No 1 up here in “North Britain”, continues to astound me with his complete lack of knowledge on all things Scottish, political and is or isn’t a deferred matter for the Scottish Parliament?

I cringe when he opens his mouth at First Minister’s Question Time as you can hear him verbally stumble towards the political bear trap and you know he is going to put his foot in it.

I think his research team have bets on who can get him to embarrass himself the most, with the questions they give him. I have come to the conclusion that he is what they now term a “useful idiot”.

Whilst he whines that there is no desire for a second referendum, he may look over the way and see it is an SNP administration running Scotland? I think that should register some cognitive response within his head, as to the true political situation within his branch office area.

Sandy Allan
Newburgh, Ellon

NOW to let me understand this: the (Scottish) Labour Party in the international cause believe that it would be undemocratic for a puir wee bit nation to have a say in its governance and that it would improve its circumstance in international terms by adhering to a former colonial power which, under the leadership of right-wing xenophobes, is about to leave an international and peaceful co-operative. Have I got that right? Or is that only today’s version?

Has the (Scottish) Labour party learned nothing from its founders who believed in Scottish independence and have they so forgotten their Clydeside and mining roots to believe the guile or to seek the gold like their Unionist pals, the Tories? The latter have been with us since the days of Wallace and Bruce and served us ill in 1707, but for the (Scottish) Labour party to pretend to be of high international moral standing, while standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories, defies the credibility of those who marched against Blair’s wars and continue to march against Trident.

KM Campbell

WELL it’s not at all confusing, is it? JC’s right hand man says one thing and then is totally contradicted by the branch office.

It now appears that Ian Murray MP has perhaps spoken and criticised too soon. He along with the other forgetables has clearly stated the SLP is a totally UK Unionist party, no ifs and no buts.

When independence finally arrives I’m sure that many will remember Mr Murray’s stated position and hostile rejection of any referendum. Is there actually a place for Labour in Scotland in the future?

Surely some new socialist party taking the sensible left view of the political spectrum would be a benefit to a progressive independent Scotland.

The dinosaurs of the SLP are about to become extinct in a very public way.

Dougie Gray