I READ with interest the letter from Dr Gerald Edwards (May 23). If Ruth Davidson is the answer, then we are asking the wrong question.

I believed a doctorate in any subject had to be evidence-based, but Dr Edward’s thesis is contradicted by the evidence. Ms Davidson’s election leaflet containing 25 references to “independence” or “Indyref 2” or “separatists”, and so on, tells us nothing about what her policies are for Scotland.

Her attempt to divest herself of responsibility for what became the “rape clause” issue, and to taunt Nicola Sturgeon by suggesting that she counters the matter by adopting it through Holyrood legislation, without saying which services she would cut to find the compensating £200 million savings, showed disregard for the finite nature of our financial resources – she did not even mention the opportunity to increase income tax to fund it.

Dr Edwards highlights: “Key areas are in turmoil, like health, education and the economy”.

He obviously does not read in the national broadsheets, or hear on the broadcast media, about the turmoil that exists in the English-dominated major part of the Union on these identical programmes. Considering that our funding is predicated upon what happens in England, the problems are toxic and infectious – or does he consider that the small Scottish tail is wagging the large English dog? On Monday, a leading English newspaper carried letters decrying the plight of education there, and we all know about the chaotic English NHS. Postponing repaying of debt to 2025 is hardly evidence of a thriving economy.

So, what advice would Ms Davidson carry to No. 10? Could it be that she would call for more adequate powers for Holyrood? Westminster could not function properly with our constraints. Or would she recommend independence as the only solution? That would avoid a repetition of Labour at Westminster accumulating budgetary debt of £160 billion, from which we “benefited” from our “share” of £15bn, which, miraculously, became regarded as our deficit. No Scottish government would have borrowed to that extent.

Dr Edwards should not exaggerate the influence of Ms Davidson in Scotland – her achievement so far has been to attract a swing of equally Unionist Labour votes, and her last manifesto was rejected by 76 per cent of Scottish voters.

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

DR Gerald Edwards (Letters, May 23) claims that Ruth Davidson would be far more likely to be able to influence Theresa May to the advantage of Scotland than elected MPs. As far as I can determine Ms Davidson is not standing in this General Election, opting to do her "day job" whereas we already have the sole Scottish Conservative MP in the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Scotland, one David Mundell. One would have thought he would have the ear of the Prime Minister but it is unclear, apart from the occasional soundbite, what influence he has with her.

The impression I have of his standing with the is PM a bit like the relationship of King John Balliol of Scotland and Edward Plantagenet of England, viz Toom Tabard: an empty shirt and there for window dressing only, or to use the present term for that activity, "visual merchandising".

Perhaps Ms Davidson might be parachuted into a safe English seat to give the PM her views on Scotland. Back to the good old days of Unionist carpetbaggers.

Ron Oliver,

Apartment 3, Elie House, Elie.

I DETECTED a whiff of Marie Antoinette in the air when I read the Tory manifesto intention to replace free school lunches with far less nutritious breakfasts. I swear I could hear our dear, caring leader declaring disdainfully: "Let them eat Coco Pops." Shameful.

Wilson Maitland,

Rhuvaal, Shore Road, Cove, Argyll and Bute.

IF John Prescott thinks that Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto is so good, why did he not insist on carrying out such policies when The Labour Party had such a massive majority after the 1997 election (“Prescott backs party’s left ‘right’ manifesto”, The Herald, May 22)? As for Lord Prescott's alleged show of support for pensioners would he care to fully explain the year of the measly 10p rise, or maybe his plans to double income tax from 10 per cent to 20 per cent for the low earners?

John Martin,

11 Paterson Terrace, Murray, East Kilbride.

RICHARD Mowbray's belief that the EU is and always has been a German-French duopoly, run for their mutual benefit alone, skews the truth (Letters, May 22). If there had been no economic advantage to Britain being part of the European Economic Community Ted Heath would not have taken us in and Margaret Thatcher would not have joined the Single Market.

There is economic advantage to our being part of the EU, but remaining part of it as a political union, and working continually to improve it from the inside, was even more vital. Peace in Europe through trade, controlling the production of armaments, was what Germany and France were inaugurating when they started the European Coal and Steel Community. Even Winston Churchill understood that. Modern Tories, with their fantasies of prosperity via free trade with the old Commonwealth, conveniently pretend this no longer matters, which is presumably why Mr Mowbray does not mention it.

Tory and Labour indifference to a politically weakened EU is one of the more alarming aspects of our current situation, not only because, to preserve their union, EU negotiators cannot afford to give the Brexiters special deals, but also because of the abdication of responsibility it entails for the wellbeing of a continent with whose fortunes we will forever be bound.

Maureen Waugh,

Queensborough Gardens, Glasgow.