THE identities of those named as donors to Scotland in Union, according to the document inadvertently made public via the internet, makes grimly sickening reading.

The National has done well, considering the legal restrictions on the divulgence of such material, to give those readers not yet privy to the list some idea of the social position and standing of those listed – without mentioning any of their names, of course (This is what we are up against, April 28).

It is only too clear just how well-funded SiU has the potential to be. The spreadsheet in question indicates a total of £650,000 in donations thus far – an average of roughly £3,869 each from just 168 donors. But dig a little deeper, uncover the true identities of some of those listed (both individuals and businesses) and you can discover what, in total, they are worth. It is staggering.

These people, between them, are backed by untold hundreds of millions of pounds. They have not had to go round the pubs with collection boxes or stand on street corners rattling tins. SiU is not trying to get by on the sale of lapel badges.

Most of its members would appear to enjoy comfortable lifestyles. Why restrict yourself to one estate when you can easily acquire two or three more, and all held in off-shore jurisdictions? To own a single horse would, for most of us, represent unattainable wealth; but to have a reported stable of 350 or more (the estimates vary)? These people will not be mounting a counter-demonstration in Glasgow on May 5.

As to their Scottish credentials, many would fail any test, being neither domiciled nor raised here. What possible reason could there be for a self-described European housewife to contribute £16,000 to the SiU cause? Why does a chartered accountant feel the need to donate twice, using different names? And it is surely interesting that so many finance companies are represented on the list (some openly touting tax avoidance services) plus a former senior banker; and not to mention those whose names can also be found in the pages of Debrett or Burke.

The National said: “Oh, and don’t forget the two earls…” A closer inspection will reveal at least four earls, two dukes and the grandchildren of four more earls and another duke – if you know the applicable family names. Not what you would call a grass-roots movement, I would suggest.

This should be called out for what it is: not just a battle for the full repatriation of Scottish governance, but a class war: a war against a very wealthy minority who cares not a jot for Scotland but cares very deeply for its already very deep pockets – and to hell with the rest of us. Apple carts must not be permitted, under any circumstances, to overturn.

Aux barricades citoyens d’Écosse!

Michael Stuart Green
Lochcarron

AMBER Rudd resigns after dissembling, mixing metaphors and propping up the May policy which lies being the Windrush scandal and other nasty immigration and heartless extradition policies which have blighted many lives.

Actually, Theresa May, the former Home Secretary, is the hidden face behind the current blight.

When Theresa May apparently appeared to scold her Tory party for being seen as the “nasty ” lot, it was interpreted as a genuine awareness that the Tory party had to change. It looks now more as if Theresa May was revelling in the fact of its nastiness.

Theresa May will no doubt claim “it wisna me”. With Amber Rudd gone, another ministerial resignation from the No 10 regime of contradictions and inconsistencies, Theresa May is exposed now to direct challenge from the Brexiteering cabal in the wings.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs

AMBER Rudd’s resignation is a bigger problem for Labour than the Tories (for anyone who is paying attention and has a memory).

Bizarrely, Labour chose Diane Abbot to front the Amber Rudd assault. Presumably because Corbyn hasn’t worked out what is happening with anti-Semitism yet?

Yes – the same Diane Abbot who said she would and then infamously did not resign over the illegal invasion of Iraq.

If anyone wakes up to this hypocrisy it will be easy to paint Rudd’s very belated departure as something approaching “the right thing to do”, and I say that as the left-wing daughter of a post-war Caribbean migrant who is utterly appalled by the Windrush debacle and the suffering caused.

With just days to go before the local elections this could be yet another very obvious, avoidable Labour party own goal.

With the appointment of Sajid Javid – popular after he overturned the environmentally damaging decision by Northumberland council to allow open cast mining in an area of outstanding natural beauty – I suspect the Tories have spotted what Labour missed.

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

AS a member of the SNP for over 50 years, I wonder if I am the only one who finds the outpourings of the “Loony Left” tiresome. The usually ill-informed opinions of rabid republicans I find equally boring.

It is quite obvious that political view in Scotland is left of centre. It is just as obvious that it is not Trotskyist.

The SNP exists to gain Scottish independence, not to create some neo-communist Nirvana.

It would be most unwise to alienate the bulk of the Scottish population who are neither “Trots” nor possibly republican with the vapourings I often see here.

I belong to the SNP for only one reason: I am a Scotsman, I support all that the SNP does and stands for, even though sometimes I am not very happy about it.

R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian