YOUR article “The History of the Scottish Independence Movement: The SNP” (April 19) was a bit of a let-down. Not only are there several factual inaccuracies, it failed to appreciate the real and rather prosaic reasons for the SNP’s formation.

On a minor point, the first Scottish Home Rule Association was founded in 1886, not 1894, but it was defunct by 1912. Two of its leading members had been Keir Hardie and Ramsay MacDonald. It was revived by Roland E Muirhead in 1918, and the membership mostly comprised active members of the Independent Labour Party (ILP). The origin of the National Party of Scotland was in fact precipitated by the dropping of Scottish home rule from the Labour Party manifesto in 1925, forcing many Scottish ILP members to consider their position.

As a direct consequence, the driving force behind the amalgamation of the various “home rule” factions, including the SHRA, was the young Glasgow University law student John MacCormick, along with his associate James Valentine. Aided by Compton MacKenzie, and to a lesser extent,

Hugh MacDiarmid, they almost succeeded in getting RB Cunninghame Graham elected as rector of Glasgow University as a “Scottish Nationalist”, against sitting prime minister Stanley Baldwin.

This was regarded as a major success for the nationalists, and 3000 people attended a meeting two days later in the St Andrew’s Hall, which is pictured in the article. All of those in the photograph, except the Duke of Montrose, had been active ILP members, including Graham and Mackenzie, but it was not the inaugural meeting of the NPS, and the Duke never joined the National Party.

Despite initial enthusiasm, both the left-of-centre NPS, and the Duke’s right-of-centre Scotland’s Party, had no electoral success, with lost deposits and a slow haemorrhaging of membership, and after much discussion, it was decided to amalgamate both into the Scottish National Party.

This was not a popular move among the left-wingers in the NPS, and many resigned. The Duke, finding the newly formed SNP too extreme, resigned and rejoined the Liberals in 1936.

Dr Lachlan Munro
London

REGARDING Martin Hannan’s article in last Saturday’s paper (Johnson is not at all like his hero Churchill, April 18), sorry Martin, I can’t agree that Johnson not like Churchill.

For me there are two many similarities. I reckon when Bojo is confused, (most of the time) his mind turns to his hero Churchill: What would he do?

“Herd immunity”. Can any of us even try to imagine the horrific outcome of that piece of strategy. The hospitals are overloaded as is, put a couple of million or so on top of that, total catastrophe.

A vision plucked from the air, or whispered in his ear by the actual man running England, Cummings. What’s a few thousand lives – think of the savings!

His military outburst, quoting Churchill, does he honestly think that Covid-19 has heard of the “Normandy Landings” the “Battle of Britain” the “Bull Dog Spirit”? Someone better tell him.

Take Churchill’s decision over Gallipoli, a plan written on the back of a cigar paper.

He wouldn’t listen to his advisers, his way or none. Sound familiar?

Thousands of lives lost, didn’t do his homework on the Turkish forces. Churchill got the sack after that, here’s hoping – fingers crossed.

At least Churchill learned from his mistakes and he and Roosevelt led us to victory.

Take Johnson’s name calling of our brilliant First Minister and his outrageous “letter box” statement and Churchill’s well-documented similar views on Ghandi. “Sticks and stones” come to mind.

Johnson was going to send in the water cannons on to the streets of London. Churchill sending troops onto the streets in Wales, Glasgow and Ireland.

And now the revelation Boris hadn’t chaired a Cobra meeting for weeks before his illness, he’d been sitting in his country retreat while the rest of the world was trying to prepare for the virus onslaught. Criminal – it was he, the dithering buffoon, who mentioned the “war on the virus”. So if there was ever a war crime this is it.

Martin keep up the good work, hope you, the Heidie and Hamish stay safe and well. This time, sorry, I can’t agree!

Churchill and Johnson, “peas out of a similar pod”.

Ken McCartney
Hawick

LAST Sunday’s National gave many examples of current injustices in our society. Many individuals and organisations want change but how do we ensure it happens?

Politicians will have to be involved, but do we need a coalition from civic society to hold them accountable? Does such a coalition need a visible leader, with a clear vision of what could be? Any volunteers or suggestions?

Would The National be a temporary “back office” providing support to get the ball rolling?

Who wants to be part of creating a new normal, learning from the current virus crisis?

Johanna Carrie
Edinburgh

WE will need to learn a number of lessons from the Covid-19 experience, but one of those that should be implemented now is respecting the value of real science to policy making.

Let us be clear; it is not scientific to get advice and then ignore the data presented to you by those who do not support your political point of view. We have seen evidence of this “selective science” in many issues, such as the health impact of tobacco and more recently, climate change.

Rational, evidence-based, scientific consensus is ignored.

This must change. The early response (or lack of it) to the Covid-19 crisis is a clear example of not listening fully, but the Government have insisted that they took scientific advice.

Policy can only be justified as scientific, supported by science, if it measures all of the evidence, not just those of the scientists who agree with your political philosophy.

Pete Rowberry
Duns

MUCH talk recently on what our Scotland will be like when Covid is largely reduced.

I would suggest that one thing we could do is lower our dependence on imported foods. A look at the labels on items such as cucumber, tomatoes and lots of other fruit/veg shows they are grown in Holland/Spain etc.

I advocate doing this by increasing our renewable production of electricity by a factor of four or five, then using that energy to produce large greenhouses or polytunnels.

Then when these are in place, especially in areas not presently in agriculture, we use the energy to heat the greenhouses/polytunnels to produce fruit and vegetables.

For those who do not think this would work, look at Holland sending us cucumbers in January.

Go into a shop in Reykjavik and see the range of greenhouse items which are locally grown.

Some Icelandic farmers are growing small crops of coffee for personal novelty.

We can look also at large sealable buildings where we can produce food by hydroponics and aeroponics. Let’s not be frightened of ourselves, Margaret Thatcher wrecked our industrial past, do not let “heid the baw” wreck our future. We care for Scotland, we care for people.

M Ross
Aviemore

REGARDING the article in The National on Friday “Bishops’ fury at abortion law change” (April 24).

I have a good deal of time for the Catholic Church’s progressive views on poverty and inequality, but the idea that a group of bishops has any right to pronounce on the matter of abortion or most other women’s issues is unacceptable.

Women are not allowed to become bishops, so let’s just imagine a parallel case.

How would people react if an all-white body which forbade non-whites from being members were to pronounce what black people should and shouldn’t do, what they were allowed and what was forbidden to them?

Until there are female bishops, we should not even engage with this all-male conclave on such matters, whether we agree with them or not.

Dr David White
Galashiels

WHILE my personal experience of local care homes has been excellent I agree with Eric Black, Aberdeen, (April 24) that there will be the need for a reappraisal of ownership in time.

Fundamentally, the obligation for the provision of PPE rests with all employers. For a few weeks we have heard some care home employers and trades unions taking the opportunity to blame the Scottish Government for their supposed failure to prove PPE.

I realise that we are in an unforeseen situation and I acknowledge that I don’t have the details of the partnerships between local authorities, the NHS and the care sector, but I still have difficulty in understanding the rush to blame the Scottish Government for the perceived lack of PPE.

Sadly, the proportionately higher number of deaths is simply a fact, no matter how responsive individual care home managers have been in isolating patients, something of which they have considerable experience.

Amongst all of this this, the rational calm of Dr Donald Macaskill, the chief executive of Scottish Care, has been welcome.

If there remains a profit in running care homes then there seems to be a strong case for bringing these into the community sector.

I say community rather than public, since local communities with external advice and support will surely be the best means of ensuring the love and care needed, indeed some are already charitable with local boards.

We have seen the huge support for and success of Highland Hospice, for example, and there will be others elsewhere in the country.

John C Hutchison
Fort William

MASS clapping on Thursdays should be replaced by mass booing to show our disgust at our government which has contributed to many deaths by putting party interests before the lives of NHS staff and patients.

Examples abound such as actively refusing to take part in the EU bulk order for ventilators and PPE in order to give contracts to wealthy Conservative Party donors such as Dyson and Burberry.

Party interests before lives.

Clapping our brave NHS staff does not make up for our government’s disregard for the safety and well-being of them and their patients.

“The NHS is safe in our hands” is a scandalous lie.

Margaret McGowan
Edinburgh