IT will have passed the vast majority of people by – and dare I say it there was no coincidence in terms of its timing on the eve of the royal wedding – but last Friday the Queen approved the nomination of 13 new peers, including the creation of nine Conservative peers and at least one for the Democratic Unionist Party, in addition to three Labour appointments.

This is clearly an attempt by the Prime Minister to improve her position in the House of Lords, which has voted 15 times against her government over Brexit, a desperate attempt by an embattled Mrs May to enlist people to help her in the unelected upper house.

Ironically, a report by a House of Lords committee last year recommended the Lords should be reduced in size by a quarter, and it was backed by Mrs May. In February, the Prime Minister said she wanted to end the “automatic entitlement” to a peerage for holders of high office in an attempt to reduce numbers in the upper house to 600.

The addition of three Labour peers sadly legitimises the actions of the Tories.

The former DUP MP William McCrea is expected to be ennobled. While one notes major concerns over the future fate of the Irish border, the elevation of Mr McCrea seems rather peculiar as in the 1980s he wanted the British Government to launch air strikes on the Republic. Mr McCrea also called for bombing raids on Republican strongholds in the North, according to official papers.

Nothing can exemplify more the desperate grab for power by a regime in total turmoil than these appointments, which represent an absolute affront to democracy.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

IT is becoming increasingly instructive to pay particular attention to statements made by the Conservative and Unionist Party’s principal advocates in relation to all matters concerning the government of Scotland, David Mundell and Ruth Davidson.

Both purport to champion the best interests of Scotland. It is significant, however, that Mundell’s “we” means Westminster and not the people of Scotland where his loyalty ought to lie. That was evident in his exposé of the intention of the Withdrawal Bill.

It is equally significant that Davidson’s statement that “our goal”, ie Westminster’s, should be “so people, including those who currently support independence in Scotland, feel the UK is theirs too”, recognises her view that Scots (she being not in that category) do not so feel. What she habitually does not disguise is simply that her party and Westminster (irrespective of party) regard Scotland as “theirs”! We do not belong and never have belonged to Westminster.

We in Scotland are by now familiar with but thankfully not inured to the semantic acrobatics of London politicians whose failings have been in an upward trend since Cameron’s coalition. Predictably the same MO is now being used by their Holyrood colleagues.

John Hamilton
Bearsden

I NOTE the fervour of Willie Rennie (and other Britnats) in campaigning for a people’s vote on the final Brexit deal (assuming someone will be kind enough to tell us what it is) but be equally committed to opposing indyref2.

Maybe he would like to explain to me how it’s perfectly fair to call for/demand a second vote on Brexit based on most of what the Leave campaign told us was cobblers, but perfectly UNfair to do the same for indyref based on exactly the same grounds. So, Brexit – must have second vote. Indy – you’ve had your referendum. You lost. Get over it ... Hmmm. Fairness and level playing field (like gay, wicked and cool) must have changed their meaning since I was at school.

Barry Stewart
Blantyre

WALKING in Glasgow’s Buchanan Street last Thursday I had what I consider to be a life moment when I stopped to look at a flag being made ready. The gentleman preparing his flag told me it was the flag of Catalunya. In conversation, unthinkingly, I told him of the many happy holidays my wife and I had spent in Spain. “Ah”, he said, “Though I have nothing against the Spanish, I am Catalan”. And that let me explain my error and tell him that, in the very same way, I am Scottish. When the time came for me to walk on, we shook hands, and I was inspired by his last three simple words – we will win. And I have decided that, until the day that Scotland becomes independent, my motto will be “we will win”. And think of the irony that each time a Unionist takes to the internet they will be confronted by my motto, www. WE WILL WIN.

Robert Johnston
Airdrie

FAIL as I did to entirely avoid the royal wedding coverage, one thing caught my attention – references to Kate Middleton and Camilla Parker Bowles sniggering at the presentation by the black preacher who demonstrated real faith, passion and an understanding of Christian love.

Isn’t it ironic that these two showed such a shallowness of experience and sense of occasion – something that, in the old days, would have been called “lack of breeding”?

Amanda Baker
Edinburgh

THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is right that the disestablishment of the Church of England would not be a disaster. Separation from the British state would be the church’s salvation.

The Christian calling “to care for the vulnerable and the poor and the weak” is common to most religions. It is also incompatible with the state’s neoliberal economic doctrine of the last 30 years – and foreseeable future. A separation may be the impetus required to make more clerics speak out against injustice and truly fulfil their calling.

Geoff Naylor
Winchester