Letters: The Tories are smirking at the Scots who voted No

The EU referendum result north of the Tweed is of no consequence whatsoever.

It is sad to write a letter like this, but that is reality. To put it further, Scotland was and still is incorporated into the English constitutional system. The Unionist adherents to the devolution settlement are kidding on when they protest at May’s diktat. They accept the ultimate supremacy, or if you like governorship, of the Secretary of State from Westminster and whatever party is in power in London.

So to all those north of the Tweed still with their subservient cottar sensibilities, your devolution settlement is a hoax and the Tory Better Together group of Unionists are smirking at the Labour, LibDem and others who voted No in 2014. After all, the No voters deserve all they get. There is a way out, but it will take a generational change still to achieve it.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

PRIME Minister May referred to the 2014 vote on independence as justifying her stance on the EU Withdrawal Bill. The Scottish Government should respond by seeking to hold a second referendum immediately to test if her statement remains extant now that the Scottish electorate has witnessed Tory duplicity.

Mike Underwood
Linlithgow

I REFER to the PM’s repeated use of 2014 referendum to justify her stance over the EU Withdrawal Bill; never let it be forgotten that the decision was made on false promises and downright lies.

Hopefully people will have come to realise that Westminster cannot be trusted and will be wise when they make their choice next time.

Mary Clark
Midlothian

THE Scots were satisfied with the integrity of the EU’s common market and saw no need to leave it for the world of opportunity envisaged by the Brexiteers.

Empowering ministers to bypass parliament and implement changes to the law on their own account is a major change that almost annuls the devolution settlements made only 20 years ago.

That in itself is sufficient grounds for Holyrood to reject the Brexit bill, let alone the thought that these same ministers all serve on the Brexit Cabinet Committee that has been locked in a destructive battle for two years, and negotiations with the EU are now effectively at a standstill.

Collectively these ministers have not shown any ability to identify, decide on a course of action and resolve problems in the lead-up to Brexit. Why should that change when they individually face problems during the transition period with the integrity of our own common market?

There should be no question of giving ministers complete autonomy over changes affecting our common standards without first obtaining the permission of all four equal partners in the Union.

Maggie Jamieson
South Queensferry

AFTER reading the National on Wednesday I could draw just one conclusion: the Brexit ear is not listening to Scotland.

Iain Lappin
Blairgowrie

I SUPPOSE I should not be at all surprised at the omission of any reference to Scotland in the new name for the now re-re-nationalised East Coast Main Line.

It has already become difficult to avoid buying products in superstores that have little Union flags on the packaging (although we do try), and one assumes that this is all part of the “we are all one UK” approach being promoted by the Westminster regime.

I accept that the name “London and North Eastern Railway” (LNER) has historical precedent, having been in use during the days of the Big Four railway companies from 1923 to 1948.

But things have changed since then, and Scotland has reasserted itself. A railway running north from London to Edinburgh and on to Aberdeen should surely have “Scottish” somewhere in its title, given that when the BBC and others south of the Border speak of the north-east, they invariably mean the north-east of England.

And perhaps someone should point out to UK Transport Minister Chris Grayling that Edinburgh actually lies due north of Cardiff, and is nowhere near being “north-east” of London.

Keith Halley
Dalkeith, Midlothian

THERE have been several Royal Navy ships named Agincourt, but given the current convoluted Brexit negotiations naming a premier boat as such could be seen as a needless and crass disregard for neighbourliness and probably not in the best interests of the country.

However, the French might not be too bothered as the English did ultimately get booted out of France. They have also had their own warships named after Jeanne d’Arc, the antagonist of the English invader. The naming is perhaps a celebration of English nationalism or at least that as pertained in Medieval times.

It was part of the Hundred Years War when Scotland was generally allied to France via the Auld Alliance, so how about an HMS Bannockburn so no-one feels left out? It was an equally valiant effort, with the result almost unbelieved around Europe at the time.

There must be any number of names of British and allied battles more apposite to a Nato member.

Peter Gorrie
Edinburgh