THE question of being English and voting for independence in Scotland is a fascinating and very necessary debate.

I grew up with all the prejudices required of a young grammar school Brit being primed for a military career or one of service to the state in public duty.

A key message in that inculcated upbringing was that the English were the top nation and that the Scots, Welsh and Irish were there to support the English way of life.

In 2012 as Johnny Beattie announced an independence vote I shrugged my shoulders and switched the radio off. It was nothing to do with me and up to the Scots what was to become of their country. I had lived here nearly 30 years but still felt it was up to people who could call themselves Scots to vote. Anyway, what was the difference between a bunch of crooks running the place from London or something similar from Holyrood. It was a long conversion from indifference to ardent Yes supporter and the more I read and listened to both sides of the argument the more I realised how desperate the British establishment had become. Even the BBC that I thought could be trusted to be fair allowed inane comments such as the whimpering, “There are already too many borders in the world,” or “It’s disrespecting those who died for our country.” They were permitted to pass unquestioned and unanalysed demonstrating a willingness to force the issue into an emotional abyss. On close inspection these two comments are completely irrational and yet are still part of the “British Union” argument.

But this is where the real battle lies and it should not be left as open ground for some opportunist such as Ruth Davidson with her disingenuous and callous claim of “English hating” to attempt to raise divisions. This battle is raging in the hearts and minds of a melancholic electorate that looks on while cynical establishment figures abuse our poppy day memorials to promote their illegal wars instead of remembering the brutal waste of human beings for the financial gain of a wealthy few. Instead of railing against this misappropriated word “British” we need to rescue it from the fraudulent misanthropes represented by Farage and his ilk. It is clear a new “British” meaning is required based on a forward-looking and ambitious mentality.

Things have to change. I am English and I believe Scotland will be better off with independence. I will still be able to go to the pub in Edinburgh or Liverpool and support England playing rugby against Scotland, as I do now. I know the sense of humour will be more or less the same, I know the beer and the food will be very similar and I will consider this to be a reflection of a “British” mentality. But I will also understand that the old dynasties that ran the gun boats and the slave trades, that amassed their wealth on the sweat and sacrifice of the poor from around this globe represent the past and should no longer dominate the word British.

They need to be cleared out and resigned to the history books. An independent Scotland can develop and expand in ways unimaginable to those old Brits who refuse to leave the past behind.

If I am to be considered to be British it has to be on the understanding that our nations can progress independently and that our Britishness will come in the form of co-operation and collaborations. A key quality that I believe to be British is a respect for others and for their different ways. If Westminster, and in particular the establishment, does not respect Scotland and its desire for independence then it is they, and they alone who will destroy everything that it means to be British.

Ian Greenhalgh, Edinburgh

JEREMY Corbyn’s farcical volte-face on immigration shows, nothing remains of the platform he put forward in his election campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party (Corbyn changes mind three times in 12 hours over free movement, The National, January 11).

He won the leadership contest by appealing to mass opposition to war and austerity, gaining 60 per cent of the vote and trouncing three candidates associated with the former right-wing leaders of the party, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

By the time he took the stage on Tuesday he had already backed down from the previously worked-out script, following attacks from Labour MPs, the press and corporate figures.

It was meant as a signal that Corbyn was prepared to make the political shifts demanded of him by the party’s right-wing by adopting an anti-immigration agenda.

Until now, Corbyn and shadow home secretary Diane Abbott have opposed limits and quotas. However, in the Peterborough speech this was unceremoniously ditched, with Corbyn declaring, “Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle.”

Having heeded the demand of his nominal opponents, Corbyn felt obliged to add a caveat, stating, “I don’t want that to be misinterpreted; nor do we rule it out.”

It was impossible to know for certain whether this was supposed to be a sop to the majority of his supporters, who voted to remain in the EU and support free movement, or to business concerns that do not want an end to free movement to prevent the UK maintaining access to the single market.

The one concrete measure trailed by Corbyn as proof that he would stand up to the “fat cats” on behalf of working people was his promise to back a “maximum wage” to prevent excessive CEO salaries.

In morning media interviews, he urged “some kind of high earnings cap” and railed against the “ridiculous” wealth of the super-rich.

But by the time of the afternoon speech, Corbyn restricted himself to proposing nothing more than a pledge that a Labour government would not offer public contracts to private companies that paid executives more than 20 times the wage of their lowest-paid worker.

The fact is, his declaration that free movement is not a principle is entirely sufficient to judge Corbyn as a political figure.

Corbyn set course of his tenure immediately after his election by naming a shadow cabinet prominently featuring various Blairite warmongers, including Hilary Benn as his foreign secretary. He stood down from the Stop the War Coalition, of which he was a founding member and chairman from 2011.

At Labour’s annual conference later that month, Corbyn agreed to cancel his proposed debate on scrapping Britain’s Trident nuclear submarine missile system after the UK’s three biggest unions said they opposed ending Trident.

Corbyn proceeded to junk other policies he has advocated for years, including a promise to renationalise the public utilities privatised by the Tories under Thatcher.

His response to the November 13 terror attacks in Paris was to cancel a speech he was to make the next day criticising the UK’s foreign policy as one based on perpetual war.

The Paris attacks were utilised by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron to push for a “yes” vote in parliament to intervene militarily in Syria. Just prior to the December 2 vote, Corbyn commissioned a survey of Labour Party members showing that 75 percent were opposed to air strikes in Syria.

Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee

ONCE again the SNP is considering ill thought through legislation to hammer football fans (MSP in bid to introduce strict liability for Scottish clubs, The National, January 10). James Dornan MSP must have plenty time on his hands if with all the problems facing Scottish society and economy he thinks further anti-football legislation is a priority.

If I am singing sectarian songs in a pub before a match, is the pub landlord liable or will the clubs be liable? If I am singing on public transport on the way to the match is the bus company liable or again is it the clubs?

There must be current laws which can be used to deal with any perceived problem.

William Milne, Rothes, Moray