WHAT a statesman Patrick Harvie turned out to be (Patrick Harvie suggests there’ll be no clear judgment on FM’s alleged code breach, March 8). When asked very leading questions regarding the Nicola Sturgeon/Alex Salmond problem, he replied: “It will not be a simple guilty or not guilty.” And even when pressed regarding whether the reports could go either way – “Did she or did she not break the Ministerial Code?”, his answer was: “I am not quite sure it is as binary as that. It is plausible the inquiry may find there was not a breach of the code, it is plausible the inquiry will find there was a very minor technical breach of the code, it is plausible the inquiry will find a much more serious issue.”

READ MORE: Patrick Harvie suggests there may be no clear judgment on FM's alleged code breach

This is the opinion of a very independent thinker. Not someone who has jumped to conclusions quickly. He does not want to jump to a decision, only to be condemned at a later stage, as Nicola Sturgeon has been when decisions are reversed. So wisely he is holding his opinions till the inquiry committee publish their results. A wise decision that deserves respect no matter what you beliefs.

Ian Rankine
Milngavie

EVEN in the public domain there is a wealth of often contradictory information about the investigation into complaints made against Alex Salmond. This is neither unusual nor unexpected in such a wide-ranging inquiry and given the number of people involved.

We have no idea of the contents of the evidence that has been presented to the committee or their discussions in the closed sessions.

However, public sessions have revealed little in the way of a structured approach by the committee in its search after truth; often it appeared that every member was pursuing their own agenda in their own way.

READ MORE: MSPs vote down Tories' no-confidence motion against John Swinney

The reputation of Holyrood committees rests with the outcome of the harassment committee. A reasoned, fair and unbiased report within the terms of the remit is required; this is necessary to restore confidence in the ability of Holyrood committees to objectively scrutinise and if necessary hold the government or parliament to account.

The running commentaries and public statements from some members and the use of FMQs as a continuation of the inquiry has left the impression that some members have prejudged the outcome and are more interested in scoring political points for their party in the run-up to the May election than discharging their duty as committee members.

Televised reporting has ensured that this is no longer a storm in a teapot. It is to be hoped that the members of this committee realise that the status of our parliament, perhaps also that of Scotland, will be determined by the content and quality of their report.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry

STEPHEN Paton is very careful to choose examples that support their position (Words they use may change but this kind of right-wing rhetoric always has the same aim, March 8). We can all do that. I can think of a few that could be used to undermine it, most notably the renaming of 40 George Square in Edinburgh because somebody found a footnote in one of Hume’s essays that allegedly demonstrates he was racist.

Paton is, however, guilty of a more pernicious piece of intellectual laziness than anachronism. They glibly assume that because they identify as left-wing, anybody who disagrees with them or with whom they disagree must be right-wing.

READ MORE: Stephen Paton: Words change but right-wing rhetoric always has same aim

It is about time those who currently identify as left paid careful attention to their critics, because some of those will identify as rather more left than they are, and may even regard them as not very left at all. It is arguable also that the politics of identity – with which what Paton calls “left” has become so cripplingly enamoured – is as regressive and conservative as the narcissism of demagogues and despots.

As the late, great John Peel once opined, there is a place where left and right “meet round the back”. And it must surely be obvious to anybody with any kind of commitment to empirical observation that shades of political opinion do not line up easily along some abstract continuum, or even several.

There are many more ways of closing down debate than cancelling. Amongst which is misrepresenting the opinions and arguments of others and lumping all critique together in the same pejorative box. Paton has perfected this into an art.

Duncan Spence
via email

IT is self-evident that Police Scotland are either incapable of maintaining law and order with respect to law-breaking by football fans, or are complicit in their actions. These events were entirely predictable.

On that basis, the top league of Scottish football should be suspended with immediate effect. Failure to do so will, in my opinion, result in violence at the next match involving the two “top” teams.

Of course, Covid is of no consequence or consideration to these people.

Michael McCready
Milngavie