THE business of government is one that, for the civil service, inevitably results in accusations of simply being the “rather stupid dog” as suggested by David Torrance in his latest column (“SNP’s end-justifies-the-means politics risks turning mandarins into lap dogs”, The Herald, January 15).

Too often commentators or politicians seek to blame the civil service for not standing up to ministers when in reality, the failure lies with them. Our modern democracy holds power to account though effective opposition, a free press and an impartial civil service, and each of those players has obligations and responsibilities.

Every day, civil servants work to support the government of the day and the ministers who serve it. That relationship between ministers and civil servants is a dynamic one, where policy and practice are determined through dialogue, evidence and – hopefully – pragmatic engagement. It requires trust on both sides, as well as a recognition of the different roles and responsibilities each side has. I have rarely met a minister or civil servant who does not genuinely want the best outcome for the country and works tirelessly to deliver it. Challenge on both sides is both necessary and commonplace. It is part of the decision-making process.

Inevitably there can be conflict, again on policy or practice. Civil servants are clear where their responsibilities lie, as ministers too should be. Ultimately, civil servants advise, and ministers decide.

Whispering, as Mr Torrance does, that there are concerns about civil service impartiality or that similar accusations were made around the role of civil servants during the independence referendum, does not amount to evidence.

When the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee looked at this issue in 2015, it specifically paid tribute to the professionalism and dedication of civil servants. What the committee’s report also showed was that, whilst of course there were actions of both governments that were open to criticism, a unified civil service was able to serve two different governments with two diametrically-opposed policies.

The value of our modern democracy is that there is transparency in how government conducts itself and, if there are failings, then the opposition and free press can highlight them – indeed this is an area of government that is codified for both civil servant and minister. By all means complain about individual political decisions, shout from the rooftops – but claiming that “lap doggery” is somehow endemic among civil servants is just a convenient way of excusing the failings of opposition and press to hold government to account.

Dave Penman,

FDA General Secretary,

Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London.

IN criticising the use of civil servants in the preparation of the 2013 White Paper on Scotland’s Future, David Torrance should know that civil servants are employed to implement the political will of the government of the day and in 2010 Alistair Darling attacked the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), whose figures formed much of the No campaign’s attacks, saying: “Right from the start the Tories used the OBR not just as part of the government but as part of the Conservative Party.”

One recalls the unprecedented appearance of Sir Nicholas Macpherson, the head of the UK Treasury, during the independence referendum, when he trashed the civil service’s reputation for neutrality by publishing his advice to Treasury ministers warning against a currency union with Scotland in 2014. The whole British establishment was working against Scottish self-determination.

Fraser Grant,

Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh.