READING again the comments by Monica Lennon MSP on the woes of Labour in Scotland, one wonders if that forlorn party is beyond political redemption.

Monica Lennon argues for an “independent” (from London) Labour party up here and then she blows it completely with the most inane comment made by Labour recently. She adds: “I am opposed to independence (for Scotland) because I believe it will make the poorest Scots poorer.”

With an insight as idiotic as that, it is no wonder that Labour here are in existential turmoil. It seems that Monica Lennon is tipped as a future leader (of the branch), yet she still blethers on there with the “Better Together” meme. The Westminster Parliament under the Tories have – with austerity, so-called benefit “reform”, Universal Credit and Bedroom Tax and so on – already made poorer Scots poorer.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: Can the Labour Party pull itself out of a crisis?

As an MSP, she seems to be blindly ignorant of the measures Holyrood has had to take to alleviate from its block grant the scourges of Westminster, aka Union-imposed measures. Having no doubt been fed a diet of SNP-Bad, it is obvious Monica Lennon has been unaware of these measures Holyrood has had to take, which began even before the SNP came to power. It is an indictment of Labour and indeed all Unionists at Holyrood that they are totally in denial of measures taken in Holyrood to meet Scottish needs and wishes. They do not stand up for Holyrood at all, as they deep down do not identify with it. Devolution was for them a panic measure to preserve a Union which is increasingly been the bane of all Scots in recent years.

It looks like Labour in its present state here is heading for complete exit. With one MP at Westminster, that is a serious warning alarm which it is not really taking seriously as it still hopes for a Labour revival at head office and down south.

How long does Labour think Scots can afford to wait for that?

John Edgar

I CAN only agree with Andy Anderson and Alasdair Galloway (Letters, January 3) who both suggest that if SNP polling remains high for constituency seats, they will ultimately miss out on members being elected from the regional proportional representation vote.

In these circumstances we need to provide a viable alternative to those of us who want to win independence for Scotland and have a guaranteed pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament. Currently the most obvious alternative is to vote Green in that second vote, however they have proved to be less than reliable partners ... some would say flaky.

READ MORE: The SNP must recognise they will not get many List MSPs

Only last week we had Ross Greer MSP criticising the Scottish Government for an area of responsibility of the UK Government, namely British arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Only last month did Green candidates stand against SNP candidates who were on fairly slim majorities. Had the campaign gone differently they could have stopped the SNP retaining pro-independence MPs and put momentum behind indyref2 at risk.

No-one owes the Greens a free lunch, and their sense of entitlement to pro-independence list votes is astounding. So perhaps we need a new pro-independence party which is focused on public services, the economy, Scotland’s place in the world, but mainly centred on supporting an SNP government on our transition to independence.

Experienced pro-independence candidates step forward. Your country needs you!

Rob Plumber
Aberdour, Fife

IAN Blackford is so right in indicting the systematic nature of the BBC bias against the national movement. (SNP accuses BBC of ‘systematically’ ignoring Scotland, January 4). Too often we see “bias” as the individual announcer/presenter when in fact on-air staff are following mandates issued from on high. How high, is the question.

All BBC Scotland senior management will have been screened for any hint of nationalist sentiments. In London they still have a security person to investigate these appointments.

READ MORE: Ian Blackford: BBC must wake up to the fact that it is failing Scots

However, we should not be shocked or surprised. The BBC is what it says on the can. It is not just a British broadcaster but it is by mandate a very pro-British institution. There is no doubt that prior to 2014, very precise yet secret directives/guidelines/orders were sent to senior management in Glasgow to make very sure that a “pro-Britain/pro-UK/pro-Unionist policy was maintained across all output but more significantly across all newsroom content. It is quite simple to manage. Select news editors with firm Unionist political views (from any of the three Unionist parties so it “hides” bias) in order to make quite certain that all copy, all images all reports must prevent a nationalist sentiment.

What is required is (a) a detailed study/research paper/investigative panel to be set up to prove systemic bias (Glasgow University used to have a media unit that did this), (b) for senior BBC management to be invited to Holyrood to answer some questions and (c) to seek out a whistleblower who might reveal the route or source of the directives.

Before indyref2 there must be this investigation into the content management process in BBC Scotland. The feral nature of current political campaigning, with the demonising of individuals and the use of blatant lies and fake-news, demands that the British state broadcaster in Scotland must not be permitted to operate as an organ of unrestricted Unionist propaganda.

Thom Cross

WILLIAM C McLaughlin poses the question in his letter concerning fake news and North Sea oil, “why should I vote for indy when there is only 30 years of Scottish oil left?”. The fact remains that Scotland can quite well survive without its oil reserves no matter whether there is 30 years or 200 years of oil available in our surrounding waters. This has been a well-established fact now since the 2014 indy vote; and before that if truth was known.

READ MORE: Headlines about an oil boom lasting only 30 years are fake news

Mr McLaughlin should know this and use this information within the Yes campaign to inform and persuade less informed people of the facts, rather than spouting on about people believing such “fake news”. Ironically, the term “fake news” was unheard of until Donald Trump came on the political scene. Now people are choosing to copy and use his form of language.

Alan Magnus- Bennett