WHAT a depressing thought: “still brutish in the morning”!

(This ‘Brutish’ view of the pro-indy side in verse could not be much worse, The National, December 22).

This strikes me as the desperate rant of one who knows “times they are a-changing.” When Brexit finally kicks in with its accompanying rampant inflation, rising unemployment, falling wages and lower standards of living, when their Benidorm pound exchanges for 80 cents, then, will the mantra “still brutish in the morning” have a despondent ring to it?

Gordon Cowell, via thenational.scot

In style and sentiment, it’s reminiscent of McGonagall’s best (worst!) doggerel.

Peter Piper, via thenational.scot

“But in the morning you’ll still be British” makes it sound like being British is a put-down, like: “I may be drunk but you are ugly, and tomorrow I’ll be sober (but you’ll still be British).”

Paul Lockhart, via thenational.scot

Still Arrogant In The Morning

You can dream of Margaret Thatcher,

And love lying Britnat press,

But in the morn you’ll still be English,

Just like all the bloody rest.

--

You can pretend you’re Boris Johnson,

With your tarnished Brexit badge,

But in the morn you’ll still be English,

Just like darling dear old Madge.

--

The UK don’t exist you know,

It’s a misnomer and mirage.

Both parliaments refused it,

Before a Union came to pass.

--

You can dream of a hard Brexit,

Panglossic thoughts for sure,

But you’d be better off up town,

Propositioning a whore.

--

Britannia means those countries,

On the map down to our south,

Please get some education,

Before opening your mouth.

Bruce Moglia, Bridge of Weir

Stealin Wir Thochts Awae

a minded twa wurds

‘driech’ an ‘glaikit’

an thocht

along wi ane or twa

ither wurds

they’d mak

a graun poem

--

but ane wurd

bie ane wurd

ma thochts

cam oot

in

English

--

an a thocht

ane thocht

fit wye are we Scots

sae driech an glaikit

wi gie thim lief

tae steal

wir thochts awa?

--

As Scots we get used to being told, in subtle and less subtle ways, to forget our difference, to know our place and that we will never amount to much.

Whether its Angus Robertson and Mhairi Black, sending their words down the black hole that is Westminster, or Donald Trump wanting to turn Scotland into one large golf course. A tourist attraction with no renewables industry to spoil his swing. Or the Scottish Government being handed pieces of power and money. Enough to hang themselves, with few of the levers to grow our economy or create the money for investment.

So “Still British in the Morning” is old news. It doesn’t detract from our difference or stop us celebrating the difference of others. And perhaps we can make our different cultural and political values clear when next we get to vote.

Pat Mackenzie, East Kilbride

ONCE again I would suggest Robert J Sutherland does some further investigation into the horrors of Syria’s situation before making statements like “some appear so rigidly self-assured about what is right for Syria” (Letters, December 24).

If Mr Sutherland is unaware of the implication of that statement there is little point continuing these “politically motivated assertions” from afar. We all wish the best for Syria, Mr Sutherland, but many are aware that the Western powers want “self-determination” for Syria of the type that necessitates illegal “regime change” and the imposition of democracy, of the type in vogue in Iraq and Libya.

I can agree that Mr Sutherland is a supporter of Scottish independence from his comment elsewhere – this of course only surprises me more about his apparent one-eyed view of who the “baddies” are. I’ll leave him with part of a comment from the Reverend Andrew Ashdown in Aleppo: “As long as the Western-backed al Qaeda-linked terrorists are able to operate, there can and will be no peace in the city or country. Believe me, most Syrians are cheering their army on.”

I wish Mr Sutherland, all at The National and all readers – and indeed everyone – peace and happiness in 2017.

Bill McLean, Dunfermline

IN reply to Robert J Sutherland’s letter where he accuses me of calling him “a typical Tory” and then goes on to say I wish the exact opposite of self-determinatination for the people of Syria. Firstly, I said “in typical Tory fashion”which is not the same same thing as accusing you of being “a typical Tory”.

Secondly, I disagreed with the fact that the US disrespected the choice of the Syrian people who freely elected Assad with 80 per cent of the vote. They supported known terrorist organisations to try to force a regime change. How does that in any way equate to not respecting their right to self-governance in whatever form they have democratically chosen?

As for the blizzard of red herrings, I referred to the use of sarin as you referenced the failed gas attack when you accused Assad of alledgedly poison-gassing thousands of his own citizens. Elements in the US tried to cause outrage in a failed attempt by al Nusra to use kitchen-grade sarin gas and lay the blame at the Syrian Government’s door.

While you do not appear to support independence on these pages, I was wrong to accuse you of being a Better Together apologist. I withdraw the accusation, please accept my apology.

Andy Hurley, Germany

THERE is a now a Christmas tree in Aleppo’s central square which would not have been there if the other side had won. I am finding Robert Sutherland’s remarks on Syria very hard to follow indeed. The truth is now emerging and hopefully will become accepted as the reality of situation asserts itself. Hopefully the lies about our compliance in direct contravention of the UN Charter against another sovereign nation is fully exposed. Robert finds it “hard to understand how someone could credibly claim to be a supporter of self-determination... and wish the exact opposite upon the people of Syria.”

As the people of Syria rejoice in the streets at the victory of their troops and their elected president – something the media seem determined to keep from us – over an externally-financed invasion, Syrian self-determination has been rescued. The evidence of the overwhelming support of the Syrian people for their president is well recorded and not hard to find. That the US (with its Saudi and UK allies) find him an impediment to their plans is no justification for their activity in the region.

I need to say nothing more. I will leave it to Peter Ford, ex-UK ambassador to Syria. The first sentence of my letter is his words. Ford reaffirms that the “moderate” opposition is very small and the dominant extreme elements are unreconstructed jihadis bent on destroying the West. He says that “the British Foreign Office, to which I used to belong ... has got Syria wrong every step of the way.

"We have made the situation worse. Now they are telling us another big lie, that Assad can’t control the rest of the country. Well, I’ve got news for them. He is well on the way to doing so.”

Dave McEwan Hill, Sandbank, Argyll