THERE is much referred to by politicians and contributors around nationalism, federalism and vandalism in The National over the week beginning December 14.

I want to believe that many of those who voted for Brexit in 2016 don’t regard themselves as inward-looking nationalists. That’s despite much of the jingoistic catchphrases used then and now by the current PM and his cohorts exemplify this. But international right-wing nationalists certainly welcomed the UK’s Brexit vote and there’s no reason to believe that has changed.

A little bit of research reminded me of some of the unsavoury comments the morning of June 24, 2016 (the morning after that vote).

Marine Le Pen hailed the vote as the start of a patriotic international movement that “can’t be stopped”. Geert Wilders, the far-right leader in the Netherlands, regarded the referendum as having huge consequences, promoting a national identity and the need “to rally around a flag”. Frauke Petry in Germany told us it was time to mobilise nationalist forces across all borders to forge a “Europe of fatherlands”. Yes, she did say fatherlands. And let’s not forget the likes of Hungary’s Victor Orban, Italy’s Matteo Salvini, Denmark’s Kristian Thulesen Dahl and Austria’s Heinz-Christian Strache, to name but a few, with their right-wing national and internationalist agendas.

Worst of all, from a golf course here in Scotland, have we forgotten the endorsement from Donald Trump, telling us it was a great thing, a big parallel to the mood in the United States where people also wanted to “take their borders back”. And look at what happened internally and abroad when Trump’s form of nationalism took hold.

Only one politician spoke out immediately here in the UK with an international perspective, and a positive one at that. Scotland’s FM reached out to take the opportunity to speak directly to citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland, reminding them: you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.

That for me is nationalism and internationalism of the positive genre, demonstrating that the two are possible, and not the warped view spouted by the Tory government and their backers.

READ MORE: Internal Market Bill chaos is a display of Unionism unleashed by Brexit

Brexit has reenforced the divergence between Scotland and England. But the right-wing ideology continuing to be delivered by Westminster not only deepens those differences, it also demonstrates the changing Welsh and Northern Irish positions within the unequal Union.

Brexit hasn’t freed the so-called United Kingdom, it’s hastened its demise, dare I say perhaps the only good outcome.

Regaining independence is even more urgent to prevent Scotland and our people being laid waste by the vandalism that is Brexit.
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh

KEVIN McKenna’s article (The fight against neo-liberalism starts as soon as we leave the UK, December 16) certainly provoked different reactions amongst The National’s readers but, once again, he can’t resist lobbing in asides which have nothing to do with his article.

He describes Keir Starmer as a “multi-millionaire”. Back in June, he described him as a “millionaire”. Wow! That’s quite an increase in six months. Incidentally, Jeremy Corbyn, who appears to be something of a hero for Kevin, has been described as a “millionaire” and he was certainly privately educated. Keir Starmer was educated at state schools.

Does Kevin have a maximum wealth qualification in mind for leaders of political parties? Or, does he just not like Keir Starmer?

I know Kevin’s articles are generally more about opinion than fact, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to take him seriously. (And I’ve just taken out a subscription to The National!).
Douglas Morton
Lanark

WE need to get out of the habit of relating our lives to UK/England. I enjoy reading both Kevin McKenna and Michael Fry. Each is trying to map out for us a view of Scotland as a utopia built in their own image.

The problem I have is that they take their context from the values of the British Labour Party or the British Conservative and Unionist Party. I would find their observations more convincing if they could take off their blinkers or rose-coloured spectacles, or whatever apparel makes them feel comfortable to pontificate.

Then, they could perhaps give us their views in the context of their chosen governing and opposition parties of an independent nation the same size as Scotland.

I would feel more open to persuasion of a point of view that was rooted in the reality of running a small/medium-sized economy operating in a European and/or EU context. Would Kevin or Michael tell us why a socially redistributive or a business expansionist approach won‘t be successful in A, B or C? We are not likely to be, neither do we want to be, a mini-me UK. So let’s get some other role models in play, chaps, please.
Sandy Carmichael
Cromdale

WITH the release of terrible Scottish drug death figures, it was inevitable that questions would be asked in Holyrood. Still, it was difficult to stay calm listening to the manufactured anger with which Baroness Davidson attacked the FM, accompanied by the rumble of furniture being battered to pieces by her Tory friends.

Short-term answers to the problem are difficult and should be led by experts, not politicians.

But there is one long-term answer which is usually neglected, especially by Tories: income inequality is positively correlated with drug and alcohol abuse, just as it is with many other societal and health problems.

And which party has happily presided over a century of increasing inequality in the UK while mouthing meaningless slogans such as the current ‘“levelling up”?
Derek Ball
Bearsden