YOUR coverage of the Joanna Cherry fracas was balanced and informative. Many people are appalled at the decision to drop Ms Cherry from the Westminster front bench.

There is deep concern in the SNP over recent, increasingly undemocratic trends. The decision of the NEC over how to allocate regional list seats for Holyrood without discussion of consultation, the information emerging about the Alex Salmond case and now the behaviour towards Ms Cherry, whom I do not know personally, are aspects of a highly worrying, intolerant frame of mind. So too is the treatment handed out to those who are not altogether comfortable with the party line on gender recognition. Of course, trans people have the right to dignity and respect, and to freedom from discrimination and persecution, but it should be possible to debate how that aim is best achieved.

READ MORE: Row erupts in SNP as Joanna Cherry is axed from Westminster front bench

The real issue raised by the treatment of Ms Cherry is the right to dissent, the space left for debate, the room for independence of mind inside the party. The old Communist Party had a policy of “democratic centralism”, which did not allow for dissent, and I fear that the SNP is now adopting that line, but without the democracy.

Is there to be no independent thinking whatsoever? Is any sign of dissent to be crushed? We have now a small ruling clique who will suffer no discussion. Independent nationalists, such as Hugh Macdiarmid and Cunninghame Graham, always had a hard time with bureaucrats in the hierarchy, but it has never been worse than now. I fear for the impact of all this on the future of the independence movement, and it may well rebound on the party in the run-up to the Holyrood elections. No Unionist has so discredited the SNP as it has done to itself.

There is a crisis brewing and the fear is that it will spill over once the Holyrood enquiry finally issues the documents from the Crown Office and from inside the party hierarchy at the time of the Salmond trial. That may be the time for forceful spokespersons, like Ms Cherry, who have not shown themselves “team players”, as the cant phrase is, but who have a vision of their own.

Joe Farrell
Glasgow

THE sacking of Joanna Cherry from the Westminster front bench, ostensibly because of a perceived challenge to the current SNP leadership and her opposition to proposed gender recognition legislation, raises concerns on a number of fronts.

First, doesn’t this seem redolent of the kind of Westminster politicking that we are hopeful to eschew with independence; not the new politics we are striving for in the new Scotland?

Cherry is clearly a shining and popular talent in the SNP firmament. How, on any level, should she be diminished in this way?

READ MORE: Kenny MacAskill leads backlash against SNP sacking of Joanna Cherry

Second, isn’t it disturbing there seems to be a slavish drive within the party to accede to the demands of the trans lobby group? Without disparaging their campaign to rightly have their views considered, doesn’t it seem their interests are being accorded disproportionate influence within the SNP? Is this a price they’re paying for the support of the Greens?

Third, it now seems there is to be an attempt by trans lobbyists to follow the flawed attempt by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to define anti-semitism and to create a definition of transphobia they would seek to bind the population to, declaring anyone transphobic should they disagree with it, and them.

Isn’t this outrageous in a modern democracy? How can unelected lobbyists deserve the right to such overt influence in complete contravention of fundamental democratic principles?

Fourth, it defies political democracy for the Gender Recognition Act legislation to be deferred until after the May elections, as the SNP appear to be determined to do.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry sacked because she's 'not a team player and upsets people'

Isn’t one of the glaring weaknesses of our parliamentary democracy that we vote for candidates based on a basket of policies, and strong support for one allows other unsupported policies to sneak in effectively by the back door? In the absence of a referendum on Scottish independence, at the forthcoming election many will be voting SNP on the principle that this election is the de facto independence referendum, yet the ramifications of doing so may well result in a Gender Recognition Act they vehemently oppose. How is this Scotland conducting its politics openly and different to the discredited Westminster mantra?

Shouldn’t the SNP’s priorities be to put the drive for independence first and foremost, to refrain from playing party politics that may alienate sections of the party and electorate and to defer the controversial GRA proposals until after independence; and then only subject to a referendum rather than the narrow interests of a vocal and over influential lobby group?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

THE only shocking thing about Joanna Cherry’s removal from the front bench is the fact that it has taken so long to happen. It is more a testament to the leadership’s tolerance than to any suggested incompetence.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry in 'pole position' to challenge Nicola Sturgeon for SNP leadership

To use a sporting analogy, it’s the equivalent of a player continually undermining the manager and their assistants and in particular criticising the manager’s tactics on the eve of big games whilst simultaneously being only willing to pass the ball to a select few teammates, then astonishingly feeling aggrieved to find they are dropped from the team. Top players channel their strengths for the benefit of the team and winning teams don’t have room for those whose motivation is self-enhancement.

The SNP have many talents in their ranks. There may well now be an opportunity to see more of them in action. I would also urge individuals such as Angus MacNeil and Kenny MacAskill to reflect on the importance of being team players.

Alan Black
Paisley