I NOTICED on Saturday on social media there were many people having a go at our First Minister participating in the Pride event in Glasgow (yes, really!). Their point was she should be sorting the problems in Scotland needing fixing like the NHS, education, food banks etc rather than participating in such events. I also received some propaganda in the mail from Ruth Davidson, berating the SNP for continuing to make the case for independence.

What many of those who are arguing that the Scottish Government’s priorities are all wrong don’t realise is that the only way we can start to seriously tackle the challenges faced by our health service, education and social welfare is if we cut the ties with Westminster. Our NHS needs funding (which will reduce as the English NHS continues to be privatised). It needs migration to fill the many vacancies it has and to retain those who are already doing such an excellent job (as immigration is reserved we are at the mercy of a government wanting to isolate us from the rest of the world by closing its doors to immigration). It needs the research facilities and collaboration that will suffer badly when the UK leaves the EU.

By campaigning for Scotland to be free of Westminster we will be better able to provide our health service etc with what they need, so you see they are all inter-connected. We can only fix these things with the powers to control all the influencers.

I am optimistic for Scotland’s future free of Westminster, when we can welcome hard-working people to our NHS and education authorities and treat the sick, disabled and elderly with respect and dignity, not – as the UK Government does – as parasites.

So next time you see someone going on about how the SNP only care about independence and not the issues they see as requiring attention, remind them of the bigger picture. We need to be free from this Union to be free to do things our way, with a government we elect.

Maggie Rankin
Address supplied

I WAS delighted to see the First Minister heading the parade at Glasgow Pride on Saturday. This historic event truly demonstrated the kind of values which Scottish society should cherish: tolerance, diversity and social liberalism.

Pride has become a much enjoyed fixture in the festive calendar of our city, something unimaginable in our recent past. However, the contrast between the cheerful atmosphere of Glasgow Pride and the predictable ugly scenes and violent disorder which we witnessed last week due to a march by the Orange Order could not be starker.

I hope that our elected representatives will in future think very carefully about whether the Orange Order should be allowed to continue its public intimidation of those who do not share its extreme and unpleasant worldview, through its annual jamboree of sectarianism which brings shame to Glasgow.

Charlie Lynch
Glasgow

MARTIN Hannan’s article (The Darien Scheme, July 14) gives a good overall view of the disaster but it’s worth expanding on the part where he says: “There was also no protection from King William or the Royal Navy”.

It was not just a case of withholding protection. Desperate for food, the colony received news that, despite a begging request, two Jamaican sloops, freighted with provisions and about to sail for Darien, were stopped before they could clear Port Royal.

Why? Throughout all the English colonies, from the border of French Canada to the Caribbean, governors and lieutenant-governors had issued the following proclamation in obedience of orders sent to them by the English Secretary, James Vernon (a David Mundell of his day), on behalf of the English King: “In his Majesty’s Name, and by command, strictly to command His Majesty’s subjects, whatsoever, that they do not presume, on any pretence whatsoever, to hold any correspondence with the said Scots, nor to give them any assistance of arms, ammunition, provisions, or any other necessaries whatsoever, either by themselves or any other of them, or by any of their vessels, or of the English nation, as they will answer the contempt of His Majesty’s command, at their utmost peril.” This was “by the command” of the same king who “expressed displeasure over the passage in Scotland of the Act that provided for the company”, resulting in the English investors withdrawing from the scheme.

Two thousand Scots lost their lives and, as Martin’s article states, a third to a half of Scotland’s wealth was also lost, which was a significant factor in the lead-up to the later Union in 1707.

But the English royalty and parliament stooped even lower. On October 29, 1700, William’s Parliament met in its ninth session. The King’s letter stated: “We are heartily sorrie for the companies loss in what hath happened”.

This kind of attitude and skulduggery towards Scotland has always been endemic among the English elite and, as we can now see regularly on TV, it still dominates so-called debates in the so-called democracy of the so-called UK Parliament at Westminster.

Dennis White
Lanark