Sir, So the leader of Scotland’s Hindus has accused Humza Yousaf of breaking the ministerial code by stirring up sectarian divides between Muslims and Hindus.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if one of the first people to be investigated under the Hate Crime Bill was the man who invented it?
Allan Sutherland, Willow Row, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire.
Threshold figure based on hypocrisy
Sir, – I have to say Dick Winchester’s SNP defensive response to my letter the previous day, is in my opinion weak and confused.
He seems to conflate polling with both the execution of a referendum and also with voting for a change in party constitution.
A poll is little other than a tool for harvesting opinion. No democratic consultation or voting is a prerequisite to run one.
Whereas with the latter two scenarios voting is an essential part of process and if the accepted threshold is achieved it will result in implemented constitutional change.
The SNP in their grandiose style has glaring inequality of standards here, by maintaining a very much higher standard required for constitutional change in the SNP’s own rules (over 66% of vote).
Compare that with the lower standard for invoking drastic change to Scotland’s constitutional sovereignty (just over 50% of the vote).
On reflection I retract my original quote of “more than a little whiff ” and reassert it as blatant, unacceptable hypocrisy and disparity!
William Morgan, Midstocket, Aberdeen.
Constitutional percentage game
Sir, – Dick Winchester rightly points out that the 66% majority the SNP requires for constitutional change within the party was a democratic decision. Massive constitutional change does indeed require massive electoral support.
So we would expect, come a second referendum, the SNP will accept that what is right and proper for them is right and proper for the people of Scotland.
Of course they do not – hence the very valid accusation of hypocrisy that so upset Dick Winchester.
Dr Richard Marsh, Bellabeg House, Strathdon, Aberdeenshire.
Land reformers are off the mark
Sir, – Peter Smith reiterates the land reformers’ mantra: “Land reform must benefit the many”.
Regrettably he, along with many other like-minded individuals – seemingly appalled by the current land ownership ratios – fails to mention how this aim may be achieved.
At present, with the exception of exceedingly few estate owners, such land in private ownership is managed to support the most that land is capable of. To assert that, through community ownership, that land will be better managed and capable of generating more and sustainable employment opportunities is somewhat naïve.
If an example of the potential consequences of this proposed transfer of ownership was needed, then perhaps one should call to mind what happened in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe implemented a similar policy!
D B Wallace, Alves, Elgin, Moray.
Time to move on from goading Gove
Sir, – Regardless of what you think of his politics, it is really time to leave poor Micheal Gove alone now.
There are not many of us who can claim to look like Strictly professionals when we take to the dance floor!
Judi Martin, Alma, Maryculter, Aberdeenshire.