JIM Fairlie states that “in their desperation, the SNP has simply aped the style of Better Together by warning Scots of the job losses and isolation that would inevitably follow if Scots rejected the EU” (A nation is more than its economy, Letters and Comment, The National, November 20). This is a statement that I completely agree with.

I have never been able to understand how anyone who wants an independent Scotland would even consider signing up to remain in the EU. It would be a bit like getting out of a frying pan and into a very big fire.

The whole idea of Independence from Westminster is to be able to regulate our own affairs and make our own decisions about the society we want to live in.

Why then, would anyone freeing themselves from the control of Westminster want to run into the arms of Brussels?

Those seeking Scottish independence want decentralisation, local powers and local control over their communities. The often stated reassurance to any criticism of the EU that we would be able to reform it from within is farcical given the recent “sale” of Greece.

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, another EU supporter, makes claims in his columns with The National about foreign workers being needed for our care homes etc. If such jobs paid a living wage then perhaps foreign employees wouldn’t be required.

Many EU migrants are here for the short term to make as much as they can before going home. So they are willing to work for less and put up with crowded living conditions.

However, Scots living here, paying taxes and wanting to perhaps buy a house can’t survive on such low wages.

He doesn’t mention the instances where Scottish workers have been made redundant in order for unscrupulous employers to use foreign labour.

Try telling a Scot (perhaps in Govanhill) competing for jobs such a situation or trying to get social housing and being at the end of the queue because EU migrants have priority over them that the EU is good for them. I doubt they would agree with you.

Why don’t we hear from the working classes? Why don’t you give them a chance to have their say?

It would bring balance to The National if you were to have a weekly column written by a member of the working class because I think your newspaper appears very middle class, thus giving a biased view of our Society.

Izzy Mac, Dingwall

We need UN mandate on any air strikes

WHILE it’s right that Nicola Sturgeon should hear what Bullingdon Bertie has to say about air strikes on Syria, it is also right that this should not be done without a proper UN mandate, as Alex Salmond says.

If that’s not forthcoming because of a Russian veto (as is their right), then Bertie has to realise that the UN is also a democracy and you cannot throw your toys out of the pram when you don’t get your own way.

Furthermore, you cannot bend, make up or manipulate rules and resolutions to get your own way or to justify your own position.

I am sure we will be proffered lots of facts and information that has suddenly come to light of how much more danger we all are in or are likely to be in if we do nothing.

However the facts are that Bertie, just like Tony Blair before him, has learned nothing from the Iraq war.

We have been a target previously, only because we chose to get involved in a theatre that has got nothing to do with us. It is not politicians but the ordinary member of the public who suffer the wrath of these terrorist attacks.

It is time Bertie and his fellow Conservative hawks realised that we are not a super power any more and stopped acting on the world stage as if we were.

As for the Labour Party both here and in their London bubble, it’s time they stood up for their constituents whose opinion they are supposed to represent. They were not elected to abstain, they were elected to vote Yes or No, which ever best reflects their constituents’ opinions and not that of their own.

If air strikes go ahead against our wishes, then Nicola Sturgeon should belittle Bertie on the world stage by making it known that this is not being done in Scotland’s name.

Steve Cunningham, Aberdeen

I READ the report Sturgeon: PM must make case for RAF air strikes (The National, November 20) and my view on this is absolute – there is no case for air strikes.

There is no grey areas, it is categorically black and white, either bomb or not bomb.

If the First Minister prevaricates on this issue the SNP will be severely damaged,with foreign policy in tatters.

Terry Keegans, Beith, North Ayrshire

I READ with interest some letters in The National over the past few days that criticise Nichola Sturgeon and her statement with regard to listening to David Cameron over the issue of air strikes in Syria. I fully support this.

It is to easy to say what you wouldn’t do, but people must remember this is an ongoing problem for the West and no one knows exactly how it will end.

No politician can say how far these terrorists are prepared to go and to be quite honest none know what to do about it, so it is best to talk about all possible solutions before you make a decision.

To my mind, that is a sensible and entirely honest way forward.

There are no easy solutions but I expect my representatives to consider and discuss all possible solutions even the ones that none of us would like. It is the duty of all governments, including the Scottish Government, to protect us from harm and that is a very heavy duty.

If we were an independent country these issues would still cause us much argument and it wouldn’t these tough decisions any easier. All politicians would still have to debate all the issues before making a strategy and that is what we should demand they do.

Bryan Auchterlonie, Perthshire

ON the subject of air strikes versus measures that will actually work. You can almost see the comfortable public school boys at Westminster getting excited as they contemplate air strikes in Syria.

Why? There are many reason including: It looks macho. It’s “over there”. The collateral damage won’t be white people. It’s a great diversion from actually trying to sort out the real problems of the middle east

Weird how the suggestion that funding should be attacked was sidelined and given almost no credence at all. At the end of the day weapons cost money.

In one of his set pieces, Chris Rock argues that the way to decrease gun crime in America – if they really can’t bring themselves to do the sensible thing and increase gun control – is to make the price of a single bullet $5,000. Humorous? Yes. Would it work? Yes.

Terrorists need weapons. They also require food and equipment just like everyone else.

How come they have such huge resources? Because the money is getting through.

It’s ironic that US attitude to Irish terrorism altered almost overnight when they got a taste of the horrors of this vile nightmarish way of waging violence. There had previously been a steady flow of money across the Atlantic.

Cameron poses about cutting off the head of the snake. It would be easier and less painful for civilians if he starved it.

Amanda Baker, Edinburgh

I AGREE with a great deal of Jim Fairlie’s letter (A nation is more than its economy, The National, November 20) especially about the SNP and the Yes movement spending too much of the referendum campaign on the economy and not enough on “the self-respect, dignity and self-confidence that independence would bring”.

To me it was a bit disconcerting to hear Yes leaders say “I’m not a nationalist but...” Presumably they equated a Scottish nationalist with an anglophobic chauvinist dressed like Rob Roy.

Surely a Scottish nationalist is just someone who accepts that Scotland is a nation’ which manifestly is the case since we have our own distinct history and national institutions ranging from the law to our own sports teams.

If Scotland was not a nation the separatist jibe would be accurate. But Jim is wrong when he says that “the SNP is paying the penalty”.

The SNP has never been more successful and it is Labour which is “paying the penalty” for leading the No campaign.

As the huge banner hung from the railings in Roystonhill overlooking the M8 proclaimed last year: LABOUR SOLD US OUT.

Crawford Steele, Glasgow

JIM Fairlie is spot on in his analysis of the SNP’s position on the primacy of the economic argument for independence (A nation is more than its economy, Letters and Comment, The National, November 20).

While we are reminded at this time of year that puppies are not just for Christmas, it should be said that independence is not just for the next economic cycle.

We should be shaping a nation for the future taking all aspects of society into account with the ability to make our own decisions to the fore.

And as for what seems to be an assumption we will all vote to remain in the EU.

One look at what the institutions of Europe did to Greece should send shivers down our collective spine.

Jim Cosgrove, Glasgow

I HAVE bought and read The National since day one and was extremely disappointed to read this report on one of our greatest sportsman about his hair problem (Murray’s bad hair day, The National, November 19).

Surely we should be positively supporting his efforts rather than analysing his actions over cutting a stray hair?

He has represented our country and won a gold medal in the Olympics, won two grand slams, brought us to the finals of the Davis Cup and worked extremely hard to become a great ambassador for Scotland.

I thought The National was above sensationalism for headlines.

For goodness sake give him a break.

Jean Walker, Blairgowrie