I FIND myself in considerable agreement with Jim Taylor of Edinburgh and other contributors in your letters pages of Saturday. There is a thread running throughout, one that is more and more frequently expressed, and it can be summarised as a deep and growing sense of weariness, despair and ultimately frustrated anger.
These feelings are directed in equal measure at “the status quo/system” and the SNP.
In terms of the status quo we are all familiar with the arguments that support our right to self-determination. The Declaration of Arbroath, the UN Charter, Scotland’s Claim of Right and the commitment within the Smith Commission report. None of this matters in the slightest to Westminster: Scotland continues to be disrespected and is treated with contempt.
READ MORE: Emily Thornberry declares 'I hate the SNP' at Labour hustings
In view of Westminster arrogance and the farcical outcome of the democratic deficit I continue to be astounded at the response of the SNP at Westminster and at Holyrood. If there is no codified constitution the party in power can make up the rules and enforce them, but only with the compliance of the other sides. It is said that “silence is consent” and we have had plenty of that from the SNP. They seem content to play by the rules (Westminster’s) and have gone into comfort mode. This is completely unacceptable and unsatisfactory!!
From my representatives I expect passion, commitment, confidence in belief. When our opponents act unreasonably I want to see anger and determination backed up by resolute opposition and an appropriate and effective response. I want SNP at Westminster to demand Section 30 and, when Boris says no, to walk out and say the game is up, we are away back home and can manage fine without you, thank you very much. This Union is hereby dissolved!
READ MORE: SNP MP Mhairi Black says there 'could be mileage' in consultative indyref
Is this likely to happen? I doubt it very much, as it seems that the Scottish people have become so inured to “colonial status”, so grateful to their big neighbour and no longer have confidence in their self worth.
We desperately need a leader, someone who can re-ignite the flame of freedom, inspire acts of civil disobedience, harangue all the international bodies and courts and ultimately wear down the unreasonable behaviour of Westminster.
John Davidson
Bonnyrigg
LABOUR in Scotland seems set to explore a policy of federalism in a bid to quell Scotland’s growing thirst for autonomy and independence. Shouldn’t Richard Leonard be aware from the outset that this would be wholly unacceptable? It is not an option.
Labour in Scotland is a dead party walking. Its downfall over many years, its decline from Scotland’s governing party of choice, is well documented. What part of this does the party’s Scottish executive not understand?
READ MORE: Yes, Rebecca Long-Bailey is brilliant – brilliant at losing
Scots understand that the Scottish branch is subservient to the premise that Labour nationally is unelectable without the tranche of Labour MPs Scotland has traditionally sent to Westminster. Haven’t they noticed these have long disappeared, restricted to one last stoic Unionist? Don’t they realise where they’ve gone wrong?
Having voted Labour in the past, I could vote for its ethos again, but only in the context of an independent Scotland. I’m not interested in propping up British Labour, and particularly those of its former supporters who crossed the awful divide to the Con party because of Brexit.
The message to Labour supporters in Scotland must be that if you want to see a Labour government ever again, then you could; but only in an independent Scotland.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
MARTIN Hannan’s article in Friday’s National mentions Michael Russell’s plea to the Commons Speaker to clamp down on the disgraceful abuse of SNP MPs by Unionist MPs (Blackford: Brexit will ‘seal fate of the Union’, January 24).
What if SNP MPs organised their own barracking, with shouting, raucous laughter and foot stamping every time Johnson – or any Conservative MP – stands up to speak? It’s the Unionists after all who set the precedent for rowdy behaviour. I believe it would lead to appropriate action being taken.
What’s sauce for the goose...
James Stevenson
Auchterarder
PATRICK Harvie is quite right to say that “it’s time to get real on the climate emergency” (January 24). And he is right to point out that building more roads is not going to help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road traffic. But if he is really serious about tackling climate change, why doesn’t he mention that the quantity of greenhouse gases which come from vehicles is less than the amount of these gases that comes from livestock farming? When more and more Scottish people are adopting a vegan lifestyle, it’s surprising that the Green party doesn’t seem to recognise the opportunity to increase its share of the vote by promoting plant-based farming solutions.
Jim Boyle
Netherlee
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: It’s time to get real on the climate emergency
IT is deeply unfortunate that on your front page of January 22, in representing the three devolved assemblies/parliaments, for Northern Ireland you chose the white Ulster flag with the red hand of Ulster. This is basically the English St George’s cross with the red hand of Ulster and a crown to represent the British monarchy on it. This is an extremely divisory flag that causes much bitterness and hatred, being the flag of Ulster Unionism. After the 1973 Constitution Act this flag had no further official standing, but is used purely for Ulster Loyalist purposes. It was so offensive that after the Good Friday Agreement, flags were seen to be one of the prime causes of division (along with the RUC and Marches). Generally for those who oppose Westminster rule, the flag with the yellow background, a red cross and red hand of Ulster (but no crown!) is used.
Can I suggest using this latter flag in future to represent the North of Ireland? The other flag is seen as a flag of pro-Unionism and pro-British monarchy.
Crìsdean Mac Fhearghais
Dùn Eideann
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