I CONCUR with Lesley Riddoch’s observations regarding the SNP’s acquiescence as Westminster bumbles chaotically through the Brexit farce whilst at all times pretending that the Scots don’t actually exist (SNP’s reasoned responses are no longer sufficient, November 15).

Look, I know that the press and BBC Scotland are not going to make a fuss on our behalf when Holyrood is insulted and ignored, but when the Scots do get some air time surely it behoves our representatives to get at least a wee bit angry?

I am becoming a tad fed up hearing how Scotland is a “nation” while our parliament behaves like a county council.

I believe it is high time the SNP’s legal eagles came up with some worthy causes to put to a Holyrood vote, and call out those Labour-windbag “proud Scots buts....”

You know the type – when pressed they will intone: “I’m a proud Scot, but Scotland has to know its place when dealing with the Mother of Parliaments”.

I therefore would echo Lesley’s final paragraph: “How much longer do we turn up nicely, play by the rules and get carved out?”

On the subject of final paragraphs, Gordon MacIntyre Kemp’s excellent column ended with lines which I believe should be reflected on by some of our activists: “Be patient while Westminster paints itself into a corner. And remember: it’s not a referendum you want, it’s a Yes vote.”

Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry, Dundee

EXCELLENT analysis from Catriona C Clark on the current Tory government situation (Letters, November 17). Unable to control her own Cabinet since almost year one (14 members have left to date), Catriona asks how on earth will May control the UK borders? Those who have left have so divided the government that it has now sunk into further chaos. One important question arising from all of this mess is the distinct possibility that the proposed agreement will not gain the parliamentary vote necessary to secure it. The question Catriona asks is, where does this leave Scotland and its future? Surely the answer is independence. With all the nails being firmly secured in the Tory coffin, there can’t be room for many more red lines of destruction before Nicola Sturgeon fires the indyref2 starting pistol.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

THANK you to The National for printing my letter and also Tony Martin for taking the time to mention it (Letters, November 17). It made my day two days running. Hugs all round.

I would love to get my fellow readers’ thoughts on this idea I shared on social media post. The views thus far have been all for it!

How about the introduction of a maximum wage? We have a minimum wage, so why not a maximum? And it can be in line with your lowest-paid staff, eg you can not earn x% more than your lowest-paid staff.

Shift the balance a little more ... and in terms of using a pensioner’s home to stop them being allowed to simply leave it for the next generation ... absa-bloody-lutely, why not really shake things up and say nothing above 50k can be left behind? Any property or funds that are left over by anyone over and above the 50k (royalty, sirs, ladies, celebs, peasants) must be returned to the pot for future generations.

How about the introduction of a charity tax on anyone earning above £100k (after current tax)? Surely someone walking away with 100k after tax can afford to help more than someone who after tax has less than £1k? So a charity tax that helps fund these issues ... we’re doing our bit at the bottom. We pay our tax, we graft to make the products these millionaires make or we sell them on their behalf and then we buy them ourselves, so let’s start demanding a bit more from the top!

Stacey W
East Kilbride

LABOUR MP Fiona Onasanya, a trusted ally of Jeremy Corbyn, has been accused of perverting the course of justice by plotting to avoid a speeding offence.

Her brother Festus has already pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice in relation to the incident.

I do not suppose they need reminding that former Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne and his wife Vicky Pryce were jailed for eight months in 2003 for a similar offence.

Clark Cross
Linlithgow

HAVING seen the article in the Sunday National about abolishing the unique “not proven” verdict, I would like to disagree strongly.

A much fairer solution would be for the law to be amended to permit a situation whereby (without limit of time), if further evidence came to light to prove either alternative, guilty or not guilty, then proceedings could be recommenced to that end.

Bill Macbrayne
Dunoon