THERESA May has been writing in the Irish News, telling nationalists in Northern Ireland that Irish citizenship is their birthright, and the first priority in negotiations is protecting the deep and special relationship between the UK and Ireland.

Well isn’t that just something? This is the same Prime Minister who is willing to sacrifice the nations of Scotland and Wales at the altar of the great god Brexit, denying both countries a seat at the negotiating table to protect our interests. She also refuses to demean herself by speaking directly to the First Minister of Scotland and the Welsh leader, and denied Scotland the right to hold a democratic vote on independence because, in her words “now is not the time”. Her arrogance is breathtaking!

So why does she feel the need to be Ireland’s new best friend all of a sudden? Is it because she knows full well it is not going to budge an inch on the border issues and that the EU negotiators will also be strict in this regard?

Ireland shouldn’t trust her or any of her Brexit cabal. They are desperate and will sacrifice you along with the rest of us to satisfy the right wing of her decrepit party.

Ade Hegney, Helensburgh

THERE has been a lot of talk in The National – from columnists, on the letters pages and on Facebook – about Scotland slowly being absorbed into the Westminster way of thinking, that is, that Scotland is still too wee and too poor to fend for itself. It is about Scotland not knowing what is going on with Brexit, through a variety of contradictory statements by Westminster politicians as to what we can do or what we can’t do and what we will have or what we won’t have. For instance, that Scotland will have more powers than we have now, or that Scotland won’t have any extra powers until Westminster decides when and which powers it will relinquish to Scotland.

The spreading of this confusion is, in my view, deliberate by Westminster, and it is surely time for Scotland to clear the mist. We cannot allow Westminster to tell us any longer what is what with regard to Brexit and how the UK will be so much better if it sticks together. We heard all this nonsense before – three years ago. Remember?

As I have done for the last three years, I, for one, will continue to march and shout the odds in the coming weeks at events in Dunfermline and in Glasgow. I am also a part of a Kingdom of Fife “Freedom Convoy Group” which has been driving around Scotland, Saltires aloft, reminding people that the independence movement is still alive and kicking.

However, this is only one way of protesting. Letters can be sent to our MSPs, MPs and MEPs, and we can support 38 Degrees and recommend campaigns against Westminster and towards Scottish independence. Perhaps CND could become more supportive of independence in its long-standing campaign to rid the country of Trident. Surely the two campaigns are, in reality, joined at the hip? What I am trying to say is that we must, somehow, be more pro-active about Scotland and its constitutional situation, regardless of which political party we belong to. If you truly want Scotland to survive in its own right and not be absorbed into Westminster’s halls of destruction, then climb out of your armchair, buy a flag and fight for it.

Alan Magnus-Bennett, Fife

I FEEL we in the independence movement have three core topics that we need to address if we are to have any chance of a successful outcome – currency, defence, and the true meaning of civic nationalism. It is all very well us knowing that we can use whatever currency we choose and peg it to whatever. It is all very good producing a detailed plan of how we as an independent country would go about defending our borders and off shore installations.  It is all very well every single one of us sitting back knowing the nationalism we aspire to is not that of Germany in 1930s, nor what we have seen in other parts of of Europe and in the US.  However, it is not us who need convincing but the “swing voters”,  those who will listen to reasoned debate and make an informed choice at the polling station. We must surely trumpet our cause as loudly as possible and, given our limited outlets, we need to start sooner rather than later. The more we can put the facts out there, and the more we can answer people’s concerns, the easier it will be to discredit the lies and fear spread by the establishment. As the only daily newspaper behind the drive for independence, The National must shoulder this burden of getting this information out, and in my humble opinion it needs to be done quickly and often. There is only so much the movement can achieve on social media.  

Cliff Purvis Address supplied

THE UK Brexit team has lost any credibility it had left with its proposals that there should be no physical restrictions, such as customs posts, on the Irish border.

Only a few months ago we were told that there was no possibility of Scotland remaining in the single market or customs union after Brexit as that would require a rigid border with England. In a complete turnaround, the UK Brexit team now says there must not be a border of any kind between Northern Ireland and the south. DUP MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson’s suggestion that only the main arterial routes need be monitored probably means he has never heard of live traffic updates for a satnav and that there would be a significant increase in traffic on the smaller routes.

John Jamieson, South Queensferry

WE must surely all be red-faced after hearing David Davis stating the need for “constructive ambiguity” as a negotiating tactic in the Brexit talks. He claims it is difficult to be clear on the UK Government’s proposals because the tactic is to be unclear. I suspect what he really means that it is being made up on the hoof.

Clarity is exactly what is needed yet, Davis has completely contradicted the Hammond-Fox duopoly’s declaration of intent last weekend that we will leave the single market and customs union in the spring of 2019.

Davis has proposed a double barrelled set-up which creates an interim period when we would have something close to the present toll-free set-up for an unspecified interim period, to be followed by an as yet unspecified variant of a toll-free set-up with as “frictionless” an exchange of goods as possible – without specifying what would amount to friction. A senior government minister who places such deliberately ambiguous set of proposals and expects it to form the basis of constructive dialogue is truly an embarrassment.

John Edgar, Stewarton