WHILE I am in full agreement with Donald MacRae (Letters, July 12) that it is a matter for a new EU member state to decide when to join the euro, he errs in treating the Danish and Swedish situations as being the same.

Denmark joined the EU in 1973 at the same time as the UK. When the Maastricht Treaty was being negotiated in 1992, Denmark and the UK negotiated an agreement allowing them to opt out of the euro.

Sweden in contrast did not join the EU till 1995, and as such had to make the same commitment to joining the euro that Croatia will have made. However, in those 24 years, the closest that Sweden has got to joining the euro was a referendum in 2003 when their electorate decided “nej”. Olli Rehn, the Swedish former EU commissioner for economic affairs, has said that it is up to the Swedish people to decide when their country should join the euro. Indeed, the EU itself said, in “The 2018 Convergence Report: Review of Member States’ progress towards euro adoption”, that “it is up to individual countries to calibrate their path towards the euro and no timetable is prescribed”.

The most important point is that the Unionist “mantra” that “were Scotland to rejoin the EU, it would be forced to adopt the euro” could have been happily rebutted with increasing force since Sweden’s accession in 1995. However, the examples of Sweden and Croatia, allied to opinion from within the European Commission, should, one might have hoped, have led Unionists to avoid this argument at all costs. Yet dealing with it still feels like playing Whackamole or watching Groundhog Day. But the answer to it is clear – if Scotland rejoined the EU it would have to “commit” to joining the euro (always worth making that concession, for it is true), BUT that when we join would be a matter for Scotland.

Lastly, joining the euro is always presented as “a bad thing”, and certainly its financial and fiscal constraints can pose serious challenges, but perhaps we should be willing to acknowledge that since its launch it has appreciated in value against sterling by about 20%.
Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

IT is instructive to note that in debate or discussion, as part of their hustings plan, neither candidate for the job of the next prime minister has any appreciation of the stirrings outside England regarding dissatisfaction with how Westminster action, or often inaction, adversely affects the quality of life under the present system. By “strengthening the Union” they patently meant “strengthening Tory Westminster’s steely grip”, which shows no sign of slackening despite a lack of electoral support from those affected.

The issues given prominent attention are those which are incapable, by design, of being influenced by any of the devolved administrations, one of which has ceased to function for two-and-a-half years. Westminster, in fact, is not concerned at present, if it ever will be, by matters other than those affecting the Tory party as it staggers drunkenly from crisis to crisis, all of its own making.

No hysterical, regular finger-pointing and blaming of Holyrood, particularly by the pseudo-Scottish Tory MPs, for all of Scotland’s “woes” will cut any ice north of the Tweed. The faults lie at the door of No 10, and both the present and future occupier know it. The total shambles masquerading as government is plain to see, as is the complete absence of ministerial authority and responsibility, as demonstrated by the disgraceful ambassadorial affair.

Westminster really is past its sell-by date and must be changed. Now is the time.
J Hamilton
Bearsden

I HAVE four things in mind.

A wee while ago you were kind enough to publish a letter from me with the suggestion that perhaps the neatest solution to the Brexit dilemma might be for England and Wales to leave the United Kingdom. The suggestion was made to allow Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain within the UK and the EU, thus solving the Irish border problem, and for voters in all four of the Home Nations to achieve what their majorities had indicated in the referendum.

Instead, we now have what might best be described as a coup d’etat English-style, a putsch that would be mocked by us if it were taking place in other countries with groups of individuals able to force an outcome which looks increasingly foolish. Those groups are firstly small in number politically and backed with finance, the origins of which are far from transparent.

There are echoes of both sides of the English Civil War, and that did not turn out well for either. There are echoes too not of overt dictatorship, but of other power seizures now recognised in history by us as what they were: oligarchic, with this one only to be understood north of the Border as English-oligarchic.

As it happens, and on the subject of English oligarchy if then royal-based, last week when in Glasgow I was able to see the film Robert The Bruce. In fact, far from being unpopular, as maintained by some cinema operators, the screening was full and only by waiting literally until the title was rolling did I get in, allowed to sit in the last seat, one for disabled film-goers that had not been taken. The film was not the best I have ever seen but contrary to other reports it was far from the worst. I watched it through and when the credits rolled it felt like two hours enjoyed but also well spent. This is in contrast, for example, to Oscar-winning The Favourite, quoting parts of which is still a standing joke, legs-massaged or not, and Mary Queen of Scots, which was so poor on so many levels that I walked.

Which leads me to my final point. I would not only urge all those interested and most especially Scots to see Robert The Bruce, but to think about the story. Its message of try and try again remains as relevant today as it was then, which is essentially why Angus Macfadyen has made it.

But I also think there should be a campaign to have the film shown everywhere where life has taken Scots, and not just to England. Two of my own grandparents both born in Grangemouth are buried in Brazil. More than that, the moment has come, I suggest, with independence in mind, to mobilise Diasporan Scots and their children, indeed descendants in general – 750,000 residents of England alone are Scots-born. Some have left Scotland behind. Many others have not and nor have their children and their children’s children.

In the same way support for Ireland is tapped at several levels among the Irish Diaspora, they flooded back to Ireland when it boomed and Irish passports are now gold-dust so imitation is not just the highest form of flattery but also canny.

We need Diasporan Scots with us. Is it not the mind-set that matters, Brucian and otherwise?
Iain Campbell Whittle
Achiltibuie, Wester Ross

ABSOLUTELY no big surprise at all that Spain has been using its intelligence-gathering agency to monitor the pro-Catalan rallies here on the archipelago. Their constitution forbids any form of break-up of Spain. The story here is not that it was done but just how much collusion there was between the UK and Madrid. Did the UK Government know in advance that citizens of the UK were going to be monitored exercising their democratic right to free assembly? Who in the UK Government signed this off as an “ok” thing to do?

I am doubtful if we would get any straight answers from UK Government as there is now an accepted code of practice within Downing Street and its surrounding area that to lie to the plebs is fine.

We have also had a breach in data protection by UK Government, not that that should worry anyone as it just undermines the trust between the electorate and those elected to do our bidding. But this is Toryworld, where codes of conduct are not for the elite, where anything and everything is perfectly acceptable to ensure the continuance of the Etonian establishment. No deal too dark, no island too remote for banking purposes, and no need to be honest, especially with the plebs.

The establishment has announced a war chest full of darkness and money that they will use to ensure that we “wee surfs” of the northern colony do not get any ideas above our station. Last time round it was love bombs, this time it would appear we are about to get carpet bombed with the “fleg”.

Hallelujah we are saved from ourselves!

It will get interesting as the weeks unfold but the establishment will, due to their very genetic makeup... implode. Tick tock.
Cliff Purvis
Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0

I THOROUGHLY enjoyed the letter by Cliff Purvis (Veterans for Scottish Independence 2.0) in Friday’s National. Give that man a column in The National please!
Ulrich Fischer
Torrance

THE first man is knowledgeable, balanced, experienced in diplomacy, able to assess capability and effectiveness, respected by his peers, and responsible enough to fall on his sword to protect the dignity of his government.

The second man is intellectually challenged, has the attention span of a young child, is a bully, has been and continues to be investigated by senior government agencies, is a known liar, is totally self-orientated, has no respect for women and is the biggest man-child on the planet.

The first man is ex-ambassador Kim Darroch. The second man is Leader of the Free World. Is it just me...?
Dougie Gray
Dunbar

I AGREE with a lot of David Pratt’s assessment of the UK situation at the present (July 12, The National). Most notably the current pantomime around the election of a new Tory leader.

Two rather mediocre candidates are paraded in front of a tiny unrepresentative group of people, and then the winner is foisted on the rest of the country without any approval from the electorate. It’s an affront to democracy. The Conservative Party has no shame. They are a minority government that barely has any mandate anyway.

Worse still, Hunt and Johnson seem to think it’s OK to take power without obtaining a mandate. This is pretty well an autocracy. They should feel morally obliged to call an election, but clearly they do not. They are frightened of asking the people what they think, as they might choose Corbyn and the SNP. It’s a shocking state of affairs.
Hugh Walker
Dunfermline