AS A pro-independence supporter I found it challenging to find any admiration for a Unionist politician and up until last week I felt this admiration for Jeremy Corbyn, with his socialist outlook and striving for equality.

However, his comments on Scotland being “too wee and too poor” after the oil price falling in 2015 shows he has no open mind in the indyref2 debate, which is incredibly disappointing (Corbyn tries to sell Brexit to Scots as ‘more devolution’, The National, January 21).

I can of course understand why he takes this stance on “Hard Brexit” as he represents the UK Labour Party and the UK voted to leave the EU, but he should have taken into consideration the fact that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar did not.

A hard Brexit will be disastrous for the UK economy, we all know this, but the UK voted to take back control of their borders and their law from the EU courts; none of this would happen within the single market. However ambiguous the message was during the campaign and however downright disgusting the xenophobia and lies were, the “UK” went with it and voted Leave. The two main UK parties are, rightly, following the instruction of the “British” people and will vote to leave the single market, however much I disagree with it.

We are seeing my last hope of sense or reason, Corbyn, now playing down the opportunity of independence for Scotland, so it would seem that separating from the UK is the only way we could reflect what the Scottish electorate voted for. Labour in Scotland have just taken the last bit of credibility and opportunity that they had and chucked it out the window; I hope they are not expecting much from their council election performance in May.

As the weeks go by it is becoming more evident that independence is they only way forward for Scotland and no “more devolution” or “special deals” will reflect our political persuasion. Nicola Sturgeon, who has been playing the game and exploring all avenues, has a manifesto commitment to uphold a referendum if Scotland is dragged out of the EU against our will.

I believe the SNP, alongside the Scottish Green Party, will pass the legislation and go into indyref2 with a much stronger and more practical case before the Scottish people than before. Ironically, that case has been made by the Unionist politicians in Westminster by disregarding Scotland’s simple and pragmatic demands of access to the single market and devolution of immigration and such like.

The case for the next independence referendum must have a solid and concrete answer to the currency debate and debunk fictional stories of pensions and hard borders. Perhaps this referendum could also be held closer to the end of the Article 50 process to give Scots the choice that the Westminster Government is trying to deny the rest of the UK.

More importantly in indyref2, taking a leaf out of the Scottish Green Party’s book, playing down the need for oil and focus more on the amazing opportunities within renewable energy. This week Greenpeace proudly advertised that in December Scotland produced more electricity that it needed for four days straight; that is without further investment! We could be producing power and selling it in different methods and phasing out oil over a generation.

I believe that Nicola could front a more successful and methodical independence referendum campaign that 2014 and it is up to us, the Yes voters, to break down the barriers created in 2014 and engage with those who voted No.

Brian Finlay, Rutherglen

I READ Pat Kane’s excellent commentary on the plight of grandparents – grannies in particular – who selflessly give up their their precious time, freely sacrificing their hard-earned retirement years to the love and devotion they nurture for their children and grandchildren (Don’t give up on our elders: we must fire them up for the fray instead, The National, January 21).

Pat eloquently describes the parent/grandchild need and although he addresses the critical importance of ameliorating the situation for all concerned “parties” – the least of the problem being the adverse effect on grandparents, especially grannies, voting for the status quo politically – there needs to be tangible light at the end of the proverbial tunnel for them.

I am not a sociologist nor an expert on child care but I have first-hand experience of the childcare dilemma in Scotland, having experienced no fewer than four successive waves of grandchild “care needs” as the family happily expanded.

A major component of the present situation could be solved virtually at a stroke by legislating that flexitime become mandatory in every public or private place of employment. Such legislation would have to be fully scrutinised such that no employer could with impunity discriminate against parent/child care needs. Such a measure would give, dare I say it, relief to grandparents who, out of love for their grandchildren, leave their beds at early hours to take their grandchildren to school or nursery, when the parent(s) on flexitime could do this themselves.

Also, legislating after-school care for primary school children requiring such care would also ease the need for grandparent input dramatically. Such measures if properly introduced would go a long way to making the working lives of parents and the retirement lives of grandparents much less stressfull and the more enjoyable. The benefits to the Scottish economy could be quite enormous due to reduced stress on family life and a happier workforce. Worth a whirl?

Eric McArthur, Dalmuir

SHONA Craven’s article on nuisance callers brings to mind a scam I unveiled to HMRC several months ago through their website and informing them of the phone number from which the scam originated (What can we do with nuisance callers?, The National, January 20). Several days later they got back in touch, thanking me, but saying it was something they couldn’t handle and that I should take it through police channels.

So little wonder, then, that tax evaders are living the high life, unworried about the chances of being caught by our reserved to Westminster tax system; nor did it come as a surprise that I received further phone calls from the same scamming number. If that’s the zenith of Whitehall’s abilities, I’ll expect a bone-shattering Brexit ride.

Frank Lynch, Kirknewton

WHAT can we do with nuisance callers? They are certainly galvanised into ending their calls when I reply in Gaelic. The language of my Hebridean forebears certainly has other, far more interesting uses, but I can recommend it as an instant silencer when plagued by cold calls, even those originating in Glasgow.

Cum Gaidhlig beo!

Katherine Campbell, Longmuir, Glasgow

IN response to the suggestion that “families should just see one midwife, says birth care report” (The National, January 21), I would like to make a few comments.

This is not a “new idea” at all. I worked in the NHS for 43 years (20 as a community midwife) in both Scotland and England and the practice then was just that. I would see the mother at home to book her for her delivery either at home or in hospital, then all through antenatal care at clinics, sometimes at the birth and always for postnatal care with up to 10 days of daily visits at home, after which the health visitor would take over, although we were still responsible for the mother for up to 28 days post delivery. We were also attached to a GP practice, which is also important.

A mother likes to know and be known by her midwife, and this way of working creates a bond between her and her midwife. Many retired midwives will be able to tell the same story.

Chris Peacock, Gauldry, Fife