BORIS Johnson insists on rabbiting on regarding “one nation Conservatism”, a description whose real meaning is known to himself alone.
It is at the very least his recognition – and this fact ought to be prominent in the minds of all Scottish voters on December 12 – that he simply does not regard our country as a nation, in contradiction of his many other allusions to “the family of nations” which makes up at present the United Kingdom. It requires no genius-like conclusion to realise that his meaning is to convey his purpose of IMPOSING on all parts of the latter a Tory-dominated existence.
READ MORE: Johnson refuses to debate Nicola Sturgeon or agree to indyref2
He ignores the fact that Scotland’s rejection of Toryism is permanent, as is our intention to regain the sovereignty which will allow us to determine a future unpolluted by unwanted and often hostile Westminster interference. The descriptions of “Scottish” Labour, Liberal Democrats and of course Conservative parties must be to him anathema, while to all real Scots the description is not even appropriate.
In the round, how can Boris Johnson’s “one nation Conservatism” be applied uniformly as he would wish to the disparate regions of England, thereby ignoring the relevance of the disparity? England will of course attend to itself, but meanwhile only the Scottish vote will determine our desired future, and that should be uppermost in the minds of all of us on December 12.
What can Labour, Liberal Democrats or Tories offer to us other than the failed status quo? We do know the worth of Westminster’s promises!
J Hamilton
Bearsden
IT has been reported that Boris Johnson has ramped up his anti-indyref message, saying there will never be an independence referendum for as long as he is Prime Minister. Well let’s get out and make sure that he won’t be the UK leader after December 12.
Pete Rowberry
Duns
I HAD not even got past the front page of Monday’s paper before I was angry. Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude has really got my dander up!
What right has Jeremy Corbyn got, even if he becomes Prime Minister of England (because let’s not forget it’s an English government that sits at Westminster – not a British one), to tell the people of Scotland we cannot decide whether or not to remain part of his “precious Union” until he decides to let us?
As I understand it, and I’ve voiced this opinion many times before, the Treaty of Union was a treaty of incorporation by which Scotland and England were to be incorporated into a new entity called Great Britain. This Great Britain would sit in London and be governed by a written constitution.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson: Chances of No-Deal Brexit 'absolutely zero'
Instead, the English Government adjourned, then re-convened as the Government of Great Britain without any written constitution. It retained all its old practices and its old format of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Therefore, nothing actually changed. England was not incorporated into the new entity. It became the new entity; and Scotland was incorporated into that. As far as I am aware that is not what was supposed to happen.
I base my opinion on the research carried out by Tom Steele and his statement, on page 159 of his well-known and much acclaimed book Scotland’s Story, where he states: “Although in theory the Treaty [of Union] created a new parliament, in reality the English Parliament carried on unchanged.”
Therefore, the terms of the treaty were never instigated and therefore it should be declared null and void.
If Westminster is going to continue this harsh attitude of not allowing us a fresh referendum, then surely it is time for the Scottish Government to consider this as a course of action that should be put before the international courts of law to ensure that the sovereign word of the Scottish people that has existed for some 700 years (Declaration of Arbroath) and that was confirmed by Westminster a few months ago, should be heard.
Maybe there is a reader of The National with legal qualifications who could consider this aspect and offer an opinion on it?
Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes
ONCE again, Scotland has been ignored. Needless to say, I shall not be watching Boris and Jeremy slugging it out on ITV. They have no relevance for me, living and working as they do in the London bubble. Both parties have made what I consider to be unrealistic promises in their effort to obtain our votes. After so many years of austerity, how can any half-way intelligent person believe them? There used to be a saying: jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today. I think we are living in those times again.
I am surprised at the attitude of ITV. The exclusion of Nicola Sturgeon from the broadcast is something that I might have expected of the BBC, given their normal attitude to Scottish affairs.
I did not expect the same of ITV. It is something to bear in mind when we achieve independence, as we surely will.
Monica Wells
Deskford
ACCORDING to Michael Fry (It’s telling that the Greens have few candidates outside the Central Belt, November 19), “the real world cannot be brought fully into line with uncompromising doctrine, and that the attempt to make it do so might end in more harm than good”.
Unless it is neo-liberalism.
Andrew M Fraser
Inverness
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Green policies are not going to work in Scotland's Highlands
I DON’T care for the red on the sleeves of Scotland’s new strip either, but Keith Mathieson of Kirriemuir (Letters, November 19) is incorrect in saying we’ve never had red before.
Older readers like me will remember that through the 1950s, 1960s and into the 1970s, Scotland wore navy socks with red tops.
David Ferrier
Edinburgh
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel