I HAVE often disagreed with Michael Fry’s neoliberal politics and his blinkered view on eternal economic growth. I assume that he is a product of his upbringing, therefore more to be pitied than scolded.

However, his poisonous tirade against Greta Thunberg (How do we solve the problems of climate change? Capitalism!, October 1) is completely beyond the pale. She has the guts to get well out of her comfort zone in order to protest about something that is very important to her. She believes, like the great majority of climate scientists, that the earth is in imminent danger from man-made industrial pollutants that are leading to the planet warming and she hasn’t just sat on her arse, complaining about the lack of real progress in halting this warming. Instead, at 15 years old, she started to try and raise awareness of the problem and boy, has she succeeded.

Fry, your nasty carping at her, your statements that it is just “typical adolescent tantrums” and “I wish her every success in the rest of her acting career”, are quite sickening to read. This column was shameful.

Tony Perridge

READ MORE: How do we solve the problems of climate change? Capitalism!

MICHAEL FRY is disingenuous if he thinks that we plebs cannot understand the rationale behind the young generation’s reaction to Greta Thunberg’s clarion call on climate change. Regardless of age or class, we are all going to suffer the same consequences when global warming takes a real hold on our way of life – our very existence. Greta and her like-minded supporters are just the spark that can start a conflagration and I hope that they find a way in the future to apply their energies in environmental issues.

As an octogenarian, I am impressed by the sincerity and gravitas of the movement. Yes, we need to focus on the practicalities, and that most countries are doing. But Mr Fry also needs to remember that it takes time for trees – and young people – to mature. Would that he gave some encouragement rather than sneer at an easy target.

Janet Cunningham

HOW low can a columnist stoop? Ten out of ten for Michael Fry’s highly objectionable personal attack on Greta Thunberg. Today’s vulnerable generation have a brave young leader. Faceless mega-capitalists and their hedge fund friends hope to profit by saving the planet using various geo-engineering technologies. Rising temperatures and runaway capitalism in fewer hands, a heady mix! Don’t mention nuclear weapons.

Iain R Thomson

EVER since this Brexit farce started, ie the run-up to the referendum more than three years ago, I was convinced there HAD to be an angle behind all the Johnson/Farage bullshit. Who were the puppeteers pulling the strings?

A big thank you to George Kerevan for revealing what’s REALLY going on, and what’s REALLY driving Brexit. NOT freedom from Euro bureaucracy, NOT British (English?) patriotism, NOT a fear of invasion by foreign labour, but simply GREED by the hedge fund brigade who obviously will make a fortune by implementing a no-deal Brexit (Meet the money men who are bankrolling Boris, September 30).

Fortunately the majority of Scots were NOT fooled by the smokescreen. Sadly, as will always be the case in this sham Union, we were outnumbered by those who were.

Barry Stewart

READ MORE: Meet the men backing Boris Johnson who stand to win from Brexit​

AS the media Brexit circus moves on to the Tory conference, it is surely time to reflect on the significance of Aidan O’Neill’s clear, passionate and forceful defence of the Court of Session’s decision in Cherry case and the Supreme Court’s acceptance of his assertions.

O’Neill pointed out that under the UK constitution there are four nations within the UK state. The Supreme Court also accepted from him that the UK operates under the rule of law and follows the principle that the people are sovereign. No-one (including any monarch) is above the law. The people, through voting, voluntarily transfer their sovereignty onto their politicians (parliament). Any executive (government) is answerable to that parliament.

However, in the EU referendum, people had a direct “voice” for their sovereignty. The sovereign people of Northern Ireland and those of Scotland voted to stay in the EU. Those of Wales and England voted to leave. The UK constitution is clear: the people of each nation are sovereign. No one nation or combination of nations can take on the role of “the UK”. It would have been against the UK constitution for there to have been one vote for the whole of the UK state (political condition). The existence of the UK state is conditional on the UK constitution being legally upheld. Anyone claiming that the “UK” voted to remain or leave is disregarding the UK constitution and in effect saying the UK itself does not exist. Where now for Scotland?

Alison Hamilton