THE House of Commons has been at it again, demonstrating shameful behaviour by those who are supposed to be representing their constituents. The critical debate on the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 could have been described as a clear case of filibustering, if I did not know better.

The SNP front bench, in the form of Pete Wishart, gave way to no fewer than seven Conservative MPs during his contribution to the debate.

The majority topic of those interventions were questions on the legality of referendum results! Referendum results, when we are about to crash out of the EU with no deal or Theresa May’s bad deal, it really beggars belief.

Recent days in the House of Commons have really been a sorry state of affairs for us all, with a Government in crisis, out of control and being defeated moment by moment along with an opposition trying to make all the right noises but offering no real alternative or substance except to call (rather belatedly) for a vote of no confidence in May’s government – something Jeremy Corbyn, in light of his recent performances, should direct to himself.

So where now for the country with less than 90 days until we exit the EU? If Scotland needed evidence of where her future lies, plenty was evident at Westminster in recent days.

I would suggest from this evidence that our future lies neither with the current Conservative government or a future Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government, which I may suggest looks unlikely from recent performances.
Catriona Clark

I AM no fan of Amber Rudd, the Department for Work and Pensions Secretary, but should we not be applauding her decision to re-think the policy that denies support for third, and subsequent, children?

To refer to it as a “U-turn” is to deride her change as a humiliation. This approach does nothing to encourage our politicians to look at their own actions, or the actions of their party, critically and to make appropriate changes where they are needed. Rather, it encourages a stubborn attitude.

Everyone makes mistakes. Confident people come clean and change things before real damage is done. They should not be humiliated for making evidence-based common sense changes.

To paraphrase Barack Obama: “When I am doing the wrong thing I change my course of action – What do you do?”
Alex Leggatt

WELL, Robert Mitchell, (Letters, January 10), the answer to your “challenge” to explain the vision of Scotland “free of English rule and free of EU rules” is in the meaning of independence – ie being in charge of our own affairs and not being a subordinate member of a 4-country union, the UK, nor a 27-country union, the EU.

Such independence would allow Scotland to negotiate trade agreements which would benefit or at least not damage its interests.

Scotland would not be obliged to sign away its fishing waters or accept EU rules on farming.

Our negotiating team would be free to stop multi-national companies moving in to use the country’s natural resources – kelp, whisky and sustainable energy for instance – then take its profits to their home countries and leave us when it suited them.

This is not an impossible dream. Iceland, a country smaller than ours and with fewer natural resources, had the audacity to secede from a larger, more powerful neighbouring country and make its own way in the world and has thrived.

Lesley Riddoch’s fascinating film about Iceland showed an interview with a man who challenged a multi-national company’s plans to invest in Iceland because, “on the back of a fag packet” he worked out that what that really meant. It would use up the resource, paying Iceland virtually nothing, then leave, and Iceland would have to pay the price of the infrastructure erected to allow the company to exploit the resource.

However, he managed to explain this to his government who turned down the “offer” and could do so because they were not tied to any trade agreements with multi-national unions whose interests did not lie with Iceland. Note the word, “audacity”. This is what Scotland needs in order to thrive as a truly independent country.

I am not claiming that Scotland would not trade with other countries but that we would do so for and by ourselves.
Lovina Roe

MY friends in a number of countries – New Zealand, America, Canada, France, Spain, Ethiopia and others – just cannot believe that the chaos of Brexit can get any worse, yet every day it does.

It is no wonder that independence supporters are so frustrated. Brexit seems to consume all our thoughts. So may I suggest another avenue that I think our Scottish Government should be investigating?

If Scotland had voted to go its own way in 2014, the rest of the UK would have retained membership of the EU. Now that England – and perhaps Wales, though that is now doubtful – wants to go in a different direction from the rest of the UK, ie the other “equal” partners, is it not worth discussing with our EU partners the possibility of this rest of the UK group retaining the membership our citizens have voted for?

Then the rampant Brexiteers would be happy, especially as they put leaving the EU above losing Scotland.

Meanwhile, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar would get what we all voted for and our valued EU husbands, wives, nurses, doctors, carers, researchers and others would have a secure future here.

After all, what crime have we committed that we can be arbitrarily deprived of a citizenship which we value?
L. McGregor