I AM writing this on a wet and grey Sunday, but there is no such thing as bad weather when you have the right clothes and attitude. On Saturday, quite a few of us were dealing with floods, as was the M74. On Sunday we had a different type of flood: one of support.
Six months ago, Bridges For Indy on The Fechan Bridge received perhaps 25% audible and visual support. On Sunday, this was definitely over 50%.
Support came from a wide range of vehicles: bikes, coaches, cars, caravans, vans, and lorries. It was notable that from commercial vehicles and foreign vehicles, it was almost 100%. The foreign-registered vehicles were especially enthusiastic in their response. What must they have thought of us, the country who voted against our own independence? Perhaps they understand more now about what we are up against, and about how different we are from our neighbours. Or maybe they thought, if this lot are mad enough to be out out in the piddly wet rain, flying flags for independence, then it must be important and urgent and real enough to do so.
We can’t wait for the right climate. Now is the time for us to reclaim our independence. If yesterday’s response is anything to go by, the rest of Europe will be happy to recognise and support us.
Ruth Ritchie
Lockerbie
ANDY Anderson’s letter yesterday makes perfect sense of what other notable commentators refer to in many different ways – that a second independence referendum for Scotland is either not possible because of Brexit, not allowed by a Tory government, or too complex in political terms.
His four-point set of facts outlines that which we have come to understand perfectly, namely that Scotland has the right to hold its independence referendum without any interference from the Westminster parliament.
The very fact that the Westminster parliament has never bothered with a written constitution, being the Mother of all Parliaments, makes a mockery of all its decided and supposedly democratic legislative power.
So why should our Holyrood parliament not go ahead with all that Mr Anderson suggests? Is our First Minister playing things too much by the book? Is she being too magnanimous in her respect for another country’s government? Is it not time that she listened to the people as well as her civil servants and ministers?
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
I THINK the First Minister is correct to join those who want to debate and explore a more meaningful method of measuring a nation’s progress and wellbeing than the present GDP. She quoted the words of Adam Smith to show that great thinkers have raised similar thoughts before.
I am surprised that no-one so far has recalled a quote that is so relevant to this discussion. In the 1960s, Senator Robert Kennedy said: “the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion, nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
We can forgive some rhetorical exaggeration but his words encapsulate so much of what is being said now by the First Minister and others. The challenge is there to work on the worthwhile measure.
Gavin Brown
Linlithgow
RECENTLY we have witnessed an antipathy to the display of the Scottish “brand”, in any form, originating from England and Westminster. Put aside for a moment the right, the absolute, undeniable right of buyers to know from whence their selected item originates, and consider some salient facts from the past.
In years long gone and also right now there was and is no objection whatsoever to exhibiting “Made in England” or the English origin of goods or foodstuffs. Nor was there antagonism to the “Made in Britain” mark. There is also no objection to “foreign” brands. Why is there now an orchestrated campaign to deny the exhibition of the Scottish brand? There is one and only one answer, and it is that it is the policy of Westminster that nothing originates in Scotland, only in the “precious Union”, part of the campaign of hostility to Scottish independence.
This is one aspect only of the despicable continued behaviour Scotland can expect from Westminster, behaviour for which all in Scotland who support it should be ashamed.
J Hamilton
Bearsden
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here