Did you forget about 60%, Mr Swinney? Well, we haven't

The Herald Scotland

22-07-2025

Arguably, the last of these points has now become the primary objective of the SNP leadership, namely clinging on to power no matter how many promises have been broken, or targets missed, over the course of 18 dispiriting years of SNP misrule. Yet what would it take for John Swinney to achieve the first two elements of his "new" plan?
To reach high levels of support for independence would surely require turning round the [[SNP]]'s record of poor delivery so that people can believe an independent Scotland would be well governed. Yet the days of the [[SNP]] being able to credibly claim competence in government are long gone. After so many years of very public failures why should anyone expect things to change now?
People would also demand a convincing case for how an independent Scotland would overcome the many major challenges facing us. The blueprint put forward ahead of the 2014 referendum was long on rhetoric but lacked coherence. When the numbers did not add up, the figures were "manipulated" or simply left out altogether. Fundamentally, there was no honest assessment of the risks of independence or of what would be done if things did not work out perfectly. Over the years, a sequence of independence papers have only served to further confuse the case, invariably generating more questions than answers.
As for gaining approval for a second independence referendum, when support for the SNP was at its most buoyant, its leadership did briefly seem to accept that they would need opinion polls to show support for leaving the UK at 60 per cent or over and for this to be sustained for six months or more. There is no incentive for a UK government to open up another constitutional debate when it is likely to deliver a result that is not clear-cut. With all the opinion polls since 2014 showing support for the two sides of the debate at just above or just below 50 per cent, John Swinney avoids talking about that 60 per cent-plus trigger because one of his predecessors built a reputation for marching the SNP faithful up such a mountain of expectation ahead of elections, only to bring them all down again.
Scotland needs new ideas and competent government, and knows in its heart that John Swinney and the SNP cannot possibly be the answer.
Keith Howell, West Linton.
Read more letters
The voters are not fooled
With Holyrood elections not too far off, [[John Swinney]] appears to be an incredibly desperate figure. In an attempt to stop nationalists deserting the [[SNP]] for Alba and the Greens, he tries to present his party as the natural choice for independence supporters while swiftly glossing over the [[SNP]]'s long-running failure to gain a second referendum, let alone win one.
Overseas conflicts are always a useful way for governments to distract voters from domestic policy failure, and so Mr Swinney, even though foreign affairs are wholly reserved to Westminster, endlessly pontificates about the Middle Eastern conflict. Yet it seems few voters are fooled, preferring that he and his party focus on their domestic remit and effectively address systemic failings in the NHS, our schools and transport.
Martin Redfern, Melrose.
The migration smokescreen
In relation to your front page story ("Majority of firms back visa scheme for staff", The Herald, July 21), a bespoke migration scheme for Scotland would require a border to control it, and that essentially means we need to be a separate country. This is the sleekit independence campaign in action, trying to make its point, but without using the 'I' word.
The alternative is to have a package of financial inducements and clear political signals that encourage people to want to come here. The UK already has high net migration, typically a high six-figure sum annually. The problem is that most of them settle south of the Border, despite that border being open, and we typically get less than our population share. They see better opportunities elsewhere. The problem here is that the signals people receive by our virtue-signalling political classes do not encourage them. It is also the case that education and training are fully devolved, and there is no reason why we cannot be developing our own people for necessary employment.
This clamour for control over migration lets our own politicians off the hook for not doing the work we expect them to. Is that really so obvious that people simply cannot notice?
Victor Clements, Aberfeldy.
In defence of our water
As if it wasn't bad enough that the Labour Party is effectively running down Scotland economically by focusing tens of billions of pounds of UK Government investment in capture capture and storage (CCS) projects, steel-making and oil-refining in England, and by maintaining a disadvantageous energy pricing mechanism (in spite of zonal pricing proposals from Octopus Energy and Scotland's considerable contribution to the UK's renewable energy supply), Labour is now talking down Scottish Water.
On Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Labour's [[UK Government]] Environment Secretary, London MP Steve Reed, stated of [[Scottish Water]] that 'their nationalised pollution in rivers in Scotland is worse than in England'. Unsurprisingly this grossly misleading statement went unchallenged by the stand-in BBC host, Victoria Derbyshire.
The facts are that Sepa reports that 87% of Scotland's rivers are in good health (as stated by Stephen Flynn on the Kuenssberg show) while only 15% of England's rivers are rated at that level, with the Rivers Trust reporting that not a single waterway in England is in overall good health. It is of course understood that with England being more densely populated there is a greater level of monitoring in England but most sensible people would rather be taking a shower, never mind drinking the water, in Glasgow or Edinburgh, rather than in London.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.
• It must be very gratifying for people who supported the Thatcher government to see how successful privatisation has been for the water industry.
Peter Dryburgh, Edinburgh.
Labour Environment Secretary Steve Reed speaking with presenter Victoria Derbyshire, who was standing in for Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday (Image: PA)
A dilemma for employers
One thing that stands out from even a cursory study of history is that too many problems have been made worse after people decided to take sides rather than seek solutions.
Herald columnists and letter writers have certainly been keen to take sides (mostly one of them) in the case of Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife. While the various accusations fly about one more general point seems to have been missed, namely that at the heart of this case is someone whose strong (in this case gender-critical) views prevented her from maintaining a positive professional relationship with a work colleague.
She is, of course, entitled to hold those views just as those who might disagree with her are entitled to theirs. However, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, the outcome could have profound consequences for employers trying to treat all their employees equally and fairly while finding themselves under the cosh from self-appointed pressure groups to show favour rather than fairness. They may find themselves walking on eggshells for some time to come.
Robin Irvine, Helensburgh.
UK has sunk to a new low
The UK really has sunk to new lows. More than 100 people were arrested at the weekend because of their support for Palestine Action, proscribed by the Government as a terrorist organisation.
Activists spray-painted two planes at an English RAF base in protest at the UK's support of Israel's war against the Palestinians. Those detained by police included an elderly woman struggling to walk with a crutch. She wanted to speak out against the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza.
There were also two recent arrests in Scotland – one person wore a T-shirt at a music festival, another had a poster in his window.
At the same time hundreds more Gazans, including children queuing for food, were being killed by the Israeli Defense Force, some reportedly by snipers. But that's not termed terrorism. That's Israel's right to defend itself.
International commentators say war crimes are being committed by [[Israel]]. But nothing is being done by world powers to stop it. And the UK under Keir Starmer is complicit in this.
Andy Stenton, Glasgow.