Readers' Letters: Celebrity opinion is no substitute for evidence-based analysis

There is widespread disillusionment with politics in Scotland and, as the May elections to the Scottish Parliament approach, public engagement appears limited. The role of serious newspapers such as The Scotsman is surely to identify key issues facing the country, seek informed comment from independent experts and subject political claims to rigorous scrutiny.

Against that background, it was disappointing to see a two-page interview devoted to the actor Brian Cox (“Cox berates ‘deadbeat’ Trump and ‘hideous’ Farage”, March 28), in which he, once again, set out his support for Scottish independence using his characteristically colourful language. Mr Cox is, of course, entitled to his views, but beyond rhetoric his contribution adds nothing to an informed debate on Scotland’s future.

Celebrity opinion, however forthrightly expressed, is no substitute for evidence-based analysis. Space devoted to such interviews is space not used to interrogate the detailed policy claims that voters are repeatedly asked to accept.

Actor Brian Cox with SNP leader John Swinney as they march in support of Scottish independence in Edinburgh on Saturday (Picture: Robert Perry/AFP via Getty Images)

For example, the SNP’s assertion that independence would “cut household energy bills by over a third” is frequently cited yet appears to rest on no transparent or published analysis. This is precisely the kind of claim that deserves careful examination if voters are to make informed choices.

Beyond this, there are other pressing questions that warrant sustained attention, including the structural concerns that have led independent fiscal bodies to warn of an unsustainable gap between public expenditure and tax revenues. This is not an abstract matter: it goes directly to the affordability of public services and the long-term health of Scotland’s economy.

Issues such as these will shape the country’s future and should be at the centre of the election campaign. One would hope that The Scotsman will focus its considerable influence on holding all parties to account on the substance of their proposals, rather than amplifying familiar rhetoric.

George Rennie, Inverness

Vote tactically

People are constantly bemoaning the fact that the SNP seem to be heading for another five years in power in Scotland. If these same people would just for once bite the bullet and vote tactically we could change the direction of the power wagon and have a different party at the top table in Holyrood.

Individual parties may win enough seats to take away the SNP majority but they’ll still be in government. In each constituency we have to vote for whichever non-SNP candidate is likely to win the seat regardless of party, and that tactic would have to come with the blessing and organisation of Anas Sarwar, Russell Findlay, Malcolm Offord, and Alex Cole-Hamilton.

It’s either that or we’re stuck once again with John Swinney’s collection of incompetent amateurs.

Ian Balloch, Grangemouth, Falkirk

Project: Failure

Scotland on Sunday’s excellent article about Scotland’s opportunities to connect islands by tunnels was equally fascinating and worrying (29 March).

Fascinating, because it’s been done so well elsewhere, but very worrying because the Scottish government’s history of all kinds of major projects inevitably leads us to conclude that it will be undertaken in the usual amateur manner… and cost far, far more taxpayer money than necessary.

Imagine telling the people that a project will cost £10 million, then oops, we meant £40m, and in the end it cost over well over £400m. Surely not? Yet it wasn’t all “overspend” because the project, in reality, was always going to cost more like £250m, the extra £150-plus being entirely down to the wrong approach from Day One, and then extremely expensive changes to the brief, known in the industry as “a contractor’s dream!”

OK, so it’s not every day we build a Scottish Parliament, or provide Edinburgh with trams (don’t even ask how that overran, the inquiry alone has cost more than £13m).

Even with commercial investment in proposed tunnels (or maybe bridges), the government must initiate these mega-schemes by investing the right amount to ensure the essential upfront investigations are carried out, as required to identify a sound and solid budget.

There is plenty of excellent, highly professional advice available, so please, no excuses this time for the waste of taxpayer money on Parliament, trams, ferries and roads. Or just go straight to the inquiry, but taxpayers should not have to do the digging for you.

Gordon Y Watson, Edinburgh

Who’s nodding?

Jill Stephenson's letter of 28 March betrays an unseemly parochial attitude when attacking retiring SNP MSPs, en bloc, as having been “nodding donkeys” for the interests being championed by the elected Scottish government.

She asks that, in the upcoming election, we elect “new MSPs who really do put their constituents and Scotland first, instead of the voting fodder that has taken up so much space in the last five years”.

Might I remind Ms Stephenson that two former leaders of the Labour Party in Scotland publicly declared that, as leaders of their Labour “branch office” (their own words), they had to follow instructions from their masters in London.

We've seen, more recently, almost every Labour MP elected in Scotland in May 2024 do what they're told by their leader in Westminster – whether their supposed leader in Scotland was in agreement or not. We've no reason to think that the same issues don't affect the “Scottish” offering of other London parties.

She's correct, of course, in suggesting our MSPs in Holyrood were (and are) expected to work for consensus.

Accusing one party of being at fault when this doesn't produce her preferred result, particularly when we so often see deliberately disruptive behaviour from “opposition” parties at Holyrood, isn't rational.

Ian Waugh, Dumfries

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.