Letters I: Not the first time Scots have faced ‘divisive’ charge

Back in the 1990s, it was devolution that the Conservatives attempted to portray as divisive. We were told that any measure of limited self-government was totally unnecessary, a terrible waste of money, irresponsible(!) and even criminally dangerous.

History, however, has taken a rather different view. Twenty years on, you would be hard put to find an advocate anywhere in Scotland for a return to direct rule from Westminster. Can anybody name a single Conservative who ever boycotted the Holyrood Parliament against which their party had campaigned so passionately? No; me neither.

The logic of independence is essentially the same as that of devolution; the responsibility of a socially cohesive, economically viable and politically mature country for its own affairs.

Any time soon we may expect the opportunity for another vote on the matter. If we vote Yes, the result will probably be fairly close; but, 20 years from now, we shall have a healthy and functional sovereign state, and you would struggle to find a single Scot of any political colour to gainsay it.

If instead we were to vote No, however, it would almost certainly be by an even narrower margin than last time; and 20, 30, 50 years from now the matter of UK membership will still be splitting our country pretty much down the middle.

Demonstrably, when it comes to the independence question, the divisive answer in the long run is No, not Yes.

Michael Bell, Kirkwall, Orkney

WHEN Teresa May attacked 48 per cent of Scottish people by describing them as “divisive nationalists who want to break up our family of four nations”, she forgot to mention the 54 per cent of divisive English nationalists who wish to break up our family of 28 nations.

Mike Underwood, Linlithgow

DIVISIVE, divisive?! Perhaps Theresa May should really have observed the result of the EU referendum and stated “diverging”.

As Scotland moves at pace away from the rUK – 62 per cent voted for Remain and the Unionist parties in Scotland are reduced to remnants compared to their counterparts in the rUK – there is divergence all round.

But no notice is taken, as one would expect from May and her cohorts.

To quote May, Scotland “will do what independent countries do. We will decide for ourselves...”.

John Edgar, Blackford

AS always, I found George Kerevan’s article interesting but frustratingly conformist, and I wonder if this is because he is obliged to keep to the party line on support for the EU (Left needs to find correct antidote to rise of nationalist economic policies, The National, October 3).

He continues to attribute the Brexit vote to right-wing opposition to immigration and although there’s obviously some truth in this, he still does not face the uncomfortable truth about the EU and why so many people in Scotland, the rest of Britain and many European countries are beginning to rebel against it: it is an autocracy.

In its inception it was a union of countries with a common cause which was to facilitate trade and, if possible, prevent a third world war. Over the years these very laudable ideas have been subsumed to the tyranny of neo-liberal policies and, very damagingly, trying to force its nations into clearing up the mess that the wars in the Middle East have caused.

Mr Kerevan writes that the left needs an antidote to the right’s economic nationalism which will “challenge the national chauvinism of the right” and this is the conformist, superficial argument that I take issue with. He also acknowledges the danger that, in a second independence vote, the SNP might be damaged by the accusation that they are the “friend” of big business.

The 2008 banking collapse and the EU’s acceptance of the banks’ solution to it, i.e. make the ordinary person pay for its greed and ineptitude, was a turning point in political philosophy – but not that of the leaders of the EU and the US.

This was the beginning of the parting of the waves between the electorate and the ruling elite. I do not accept that this is a left-wing/right-wing split in thinking. I believe that it is the difference between fairness and exploitation, autocracy and democracy.

The challenge for the SNP is to see this and stop turning a blind eye to the EU’s domineering attitude to government, or I do not see how it can defend itself against epithet of “friend of big business”.

The SNP should be joining forces with European voices of democracy, which have been brutally suppressed by EU financial tyranny, and contribute to a return to the original concepts of the EU: independent nations working together to improve the lives of ordinary people.

Then, and only then, is there any chance of a second independence vote being successful.

Lovina Roe, Perth

I WAS embarrassed to see Ruth Davidson, the self-appointed, grovelling, Scottish apologist, making what can only be termed “Uncle Tam” asides to adhere herself to the English Tories.

I grew up in a racist Britain where Scots were considered to be permanently drunk, aggressive and abusive and ending every conversation or argument with a head butt and a stream of unintelligible mutterings. Ruth Davidson, in her desperation to be accepted by her physical and metaphorical better, has revivified that stereotype, raising the ghosts of British Empirical dominance over Scotland and its people.

As an Englishman I am often bemused by the “Scottish cringe” but realise it is born from centuries of control and propaganda. I was pleased to see that half the nation during the referendum no longer had the “spasm of genuflection” running through their spines. Clearly, there is still a lot of work to be done. I hope those of you still kneeling in the dirt can raise yourselves even slightly and give hope and honour back to the people you are representing.

As for Ruth Davidson, perhaps you can buy her some knee pads before the arthritis sets in.

Ian Greenhalgh, Edinburgh

Letters II: It’s high time an SNP figure reached out to Leave voters