How can the Union survive when three of its parts seek change?

At the same time Westminster is laying plans to pull the UK together to something more resembling a unitary state, as Ms Wishart concludes. However, I think she misses two things.

READ MORE: Ruth Wishart: Meet Team UK, world beaters at untruths and fantasy

First some weeks ago Mark Drakeford, who by no stretch of the imagination is a nationalist, very clearly and strongly opined that the Union, as it was, was dysfunctional and should be replaced by something more resembling a confederation.

Secondly, as Northern Ireland moves closer to its reintegration with the rest of the island of Ireland, driven by the protocol but also changes to the composition of the community, Wales, possibly the least minded to leave the UK, is starting to speak of a confederal UK. At the same time the independence movement continues to make progress in Scotland.

With, as Ruth says, “the economy in meltdown, a Tory Chancellor throwing fiscal furloughs around like a man with four arms, unemployment beckoning, countless venerable businesses shutting up shop,” is there an increasing shade of odds on not only Team UK failing, but being the handmaiden of the collapse of the UK as we know it? For instance, is Drakeford right that the UK is dysfunctional? Many would say he is, but it is no less clear that the confederation he seeks is not going to come from Westminster. Where is Wales to go?

If Northern Ireland and Scotland, for their own reasons totter on the edge of leaving the Union, for how much longer can the UK state survive, as three of its four parts want things that the other, much the largest part will not allow them and is working to frustrate their aims. How long can this go on in the future? Charm offensives can only go so far. If the constituent parts of the Union increasingly want different futures, how long can the Union survive these contradictions?

Alasdair Galloway
Dumbarton

WITH reference to Gordon MacIntyre- Kemp’s Wednesday article on UBI, the wellbeing economy and pensions reform (Focus on fairness will see Scotland pivot towards independence, May 27). State pensions are the responsibility of Westminster but I agree with Gordon that in the event that they do not do compensate the WASPI women , by the time we are an independent country then the Scottish Government should state clearly that they will compensate us in some way. If we get that compensation then we will spend it, giving millions back to the Economy in VAT, income tax etc.

READ MORE: Gordon Macintyre-Kemp: Focus on fairness will see Scotland pivot to independence

The Ayrshire WASPI group conducted a survey of women born in the 1950s in order to see what we would spend our pension on if the Westminster Government paid out. We received a wide range of responses but the top ones were eating out,home improvements, heating their homes, buying clothes, cinema, all with one thing in common this spending would help boost the economy, increasing income tax and VAT payments to the government. There would be other advantages too- many more women would retire , freeing up jobs for younger people. Some would care for elderly relatives, saving the Government money for carers. Others may look after grandchildren, allowing more parents to go out to work.

Lynne Paterson
Ayrshire WASPI group

PERHAPS in our assessments and analysis of present political circumstances, important as those are, we are not giving enough consideration to a very important element in our drive for indyref2.

I speak of the Yes movement, which at this present time is not yet fully functional and active. When it reaches its total campaign, what is its potential? It could do all of the following that a mass movement is capable of: a) Change Westminster/stonewalling, b) move those citizens still uncertain about independence to a Yes position, c) strengthen SNP MPs in their Westminster work, d) bolster the Holyrood government in its efforts to obtain a referendum, e) generate movement within Scotland’s trade unions for positive and active support for indyref2.

There is not more guaranteed to make trade union leaderships act than a developing mass movement. Their history is full of examples. A mass movement could also have a favourable outcome in the event of a court action. I believe a mass movement could also effect change of attitude by Scottish Labour with regards to indyref2. Of course mass demonstrations are a vital component of our movement as they illustrate to Scottish life and society our passion and determination for a new country that determines its own future.

Bobby Brennan
Glasgow

Jim Murdoch (Letters, May 27) raises an interesting dilemma regarding Johnson’s popularity in England. Being comfortable enough in your own skin affords the luxury of ignoring others struggling in less fortunate surroundings as long as you fail to recognise the dangers such a divided society will eventually have on yourself.

The outrageous in his personal behaviour is the lubricant toward the acceptability of the outrageous in his public life. The voting public in England, so steeped in Great British tradition, seem to find this acceptable. In Scotland, canny thinking is making a clean break evermore attractive.

Tom Gray
Braco