GOVE said it, so it must be true. “Northern Ireland will enjoy the best of both worlds” post-Brexit and that includes what could possibly be called a soft border, referred to as “light touch and minimal checks”.

But look a little closer and I’m the one using the word “border” whilst he isn’t. Now that could be the usual Brexit bluff and bluster we’ve come to expect from the Tories. Get it wrong, blame someone else, and when you can’t find a fall guy, dress up your failure as a success.

But when it comes to the future of indy Scotland, then stand back for the inevitable explosions of bravado and border excuses: can’t be done, impractical, unworkable, traffic jams and when all else doesn’t deter us as we keep fighting for independence, then the handkerchiefs come out to wipe away fake tears a la Hancock and the sob story will be used: borders will break up families.

I have attempted in previous letters to articulate that Scotland cannot allow pro-Unionist media and mouthpieces to set agendas and run with by lines that we have to counter. The fact that the royal train was dispatched was a classic tactic: easy, no border travel? Scotland doesn’t need to be considered, far less consulted for such actions to be undertaken because we’re nothing more than another region. Not a national, albeit a shackled one, so come and go as you like, Westminster trumps Holyrood.

And when we do respond, we’re depicted as anti-royal, pro-republican (another debate and decision once we have the power to enact what we choose?): soor-faced,ungrateful, incapable of anything other than we should be thankful for handouts, ie Barnett formula, gifted to us as largesse as many announce time and time again.

But just reflect – did Scottish opposition parties attempt to block democracy by proroguing Parliament? Did the Scottish Parliament announce it was preparing to break an international treaty? (OK, I acknowledge we haven’t actually signed any in the last few years), or has the Scottish Government failed to balance its budget for the past how many years?

Logic would then ask: how much money has the Scottish Government borrowed in the same period? How much is Scotland’s debt? It would be more appropriate to ask what role modelling then is Westminster for equality in Union or better together? And, looking in from abroad, would you be in a rush to trade or form alliances, sign treaties with Westminster with its most recent showing? But then, the PM, Gove and Raab would have us believe other nations are queuing up from across the world to do just that.

It is blatantly obvious that Westminster with its Internal Market Bill, read “power grab”, has clearly announced its intention of further attempting to devalue Holyrood to the point of our Parliament being an utter irrelevance.

Whatever, whenever the opportunity, whether coming from the grassroots, our MPs, MSPs, any form of media, businesses, academia, the cultural sector, then we have to take our argument, our voices and direct the pro-indy agenda across the UK and beyond because deal or No Deal, the game that was the Union is a bogey.
Selma Rahman

COULD someone please explain to me why a union of 27 independent states, linked by an agreed set of rules and principles, should be expected to alter any part of these basic foundations to suit one state that voluntarily decided to leave that union, when that one state refuses to concede any part of its foundations?
P Davidson