Readers' Letters: SNP have broken a promise by abandoning plans for Monklands

Given the SNP’s soft justice system, they would be treated and released faster than if they were on the NHS waiting list. A win- win?

A broken promise, and absolutely ridiculous, but sadly it is what we have come to expect - perhaps bred from the arrogance of being in power for twenty years, knowing the sheep will continue to vote for you irrespective of how incompetent a government you prove yourself to be?

Brian Barbour, Haddington, East Lothian

King’s ransom

As King Charles opens the Scottish Parliament it’s worth pondering why his core spending is rising from around £52 million in 2024-25 to £100m per year of taxpayers money by 2027-28 and to what benefit? The reasons are obscure but on top is a £369m refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, a building the King chooses as his occasional office rather than his residence, surely hiring serviced office space would be much cheaper? Whether we as taxpayers are getting value for money depends on whether the soft power the King exudes helps UK interests, for example influencing leaders like President Trump. That seems questionable when Trump is threatening the UK with 100 per cent tariffs if the government taxes US tech giants.

Why the King incurs £12.9m tax is also obscure as there is no detail other than to state that he chooses to pay certain taxes and therefore presumably decides not to pay others. Then there was the £126,000 for flights to Rome, £130,000 for Prince William to fly to Saudi Arabia, a £48,000 return trip to Lancaster and £733,000 annually for helicopter trips taken for the royal family. No EasyJet or Ryanair for the Royals it seems.

When he came to power Charles declared he wanted to slim down the monarchy but instead he is on a spending spree far exceeding Peter Murrell proportions, keeping much of the detail hidden. Does he know his subjects are still enduring a cost of living crisis? It’s surely time to consider whether the monarchy is value for money in times of hardship for so many.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Mis-representation

At what point does a government stop representing the mainstream population?

It could be now as far as Holyrood is concerned. Having just experienced a worrying lack of responsibility being displayed over the Murrell case, we now find the Scottish government about to run headlong into legal actions over its much criticised transgender policy.

Female Scottish prisoners can take action against the Scottish government over the SNP and Green fixation, with the initial help of Labour and the Liberal Democrats too, of allowing transgender declared individual access to female prisons. Very belatedly, the Scottish government has admitted defeat on this human rights issue but it was obvious to a large percentage of the population that this was a terribly questionable policy in the first place. Here comes the rub. If female prisoners can successfully sue the Scottish government over forced incarceration with a "non-female" individual then it is ordinary taxpayers who will inevitably foot the bill. The same ordinary taxpayers who railed against this policy in the first place. Why should the ordinary folk of Scotland have to pay out what may be substantial sums of money for a policy that was deeply flawed from the outset. Is this not the sole responsibility of those politicians who promoted this? Holyrood is repeatedly proving itself to be more of a hindrance than a help. If it were to be closed down, would we actually miss it?

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Nothing to see

I believe John Swinney was aware that there was something amiss with SNP governance and finances from the time of his accession as first minister - or even earlier - although he had previously followed the Sturgeon line of claiming that there were no problems in the SNP’s finances. We know that because he has said that he completed soon after his accession a reform to ensure that SNP systems are now robust and need no further scrutiny. A further dimension, one of huge proportions, has now emerged with the revelation of witness testimonies from Allison Graham and Cynthia Guthrie, former members of the SNP’s Finance and Audit Committee, who resigned their posts, along with Frank Ross, after failing to receive from the SNP leadership answers - let alone satisfactory ones - to their own questions. Euan McColm lays this out carefully, in detail, in “‘Honest’ Swinney’s treatment of SNP whistleblowers shows he’s anything but a man of honour”, 28 June.

McColm is right that Swinney has become angrier and angrier when asked questions about this, and has stalled continuously. Indeed, Swinney has become the Macavity of the SNP - whenever some misdemeanour or error is committed, he wasn’t there. Swinney has always been a scrapper, getting rid of Margot MacDonald and others as SNP MSPs who had displeased him, yet fighting tooth and nail to protect Michael Matheson from the same fate.

McColm may be right that Swinney is now the SNP’s biggest liability - he certainly should be. But unless police, prosecutors, courts take seriously the evidence and testimony of Allison Graham, Cynthia Guthrie and, we must hope, Douglas Chapman, former short-lived SNP Treasurer, the truth about this murky saga may well be further concealed for years, and Macavity will have done what he does best: escape without trace.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.