WITH regards to Robert Fraser’s letter (December 22), I would like to ask him why we want to be independent when he wants us to be tied forever to the Union via a lease-back agreement with the rUK in respect of our military and military bases?

Being independent is about making your own decisions, not about being tied militarily to another country that you have leased your military bases to and who may at anytime in the future go to war and jeopardise your bases and personnel. The current situation in the Chagos Islands is a prime example of what can happen, and undoubtedly will happen if we go down the route of a lease-back agreement with the rest of the UK.

What has become clear over the past few years is that the Westminster government wants to turn the clock back to a “utopian” Victorian era that never existed, when the sun never set on the “English” Empire. Well, I’m afraid to say that the Victorian era was not the utopia that some think it was and you can’t turn the clocks back to a period in history. The reality is that you go forward in time and what’s left behind is the history.

Presently we pay more for our armed forces than comparable countries of size and population. We don’t need Boris Johnson’s puppet, Ben Wallace, telling us that we can’t use the military to help with the pandemic, and situations like that will continue to happen if Westminster is in control of our military and our bases.

We are in a unique position in looking to become independent in that we can look at what we need and how to deploy our military to protect us instead of getting involved in illegal wars or trying to build a new empire for the UK. We could easily be a neutral country if we want.

As for the benefits of leasing back, where will the rUK get the money from without North Sea gas and oil and the other benefits we supply?

Alexander Potts

AS a regular reader of The National, it amuses me to see no end of letters from people pushing their personal agendas as opposed to presenting a united front to achieve the all-important objective of Scottish independence.

In Wednesday’s issue (December 22) which featured contributions to the debate about independence, there was a piece from Robert Fraser, proposing the use of the Faslane nuclear facility as a bargaining chip, not only for securing independence, but also for allowing the purchaser to gain temporary control of this important facility, for which we would demand a form of payment.

His proposal to leave our southern neighbours in charge of a facility which cannot be guaranteed to avoid a future nuclear accident where dabbling in atomic weaponry is concerned, together with the thought of allowing a Scottish regiment to remain under British, or as it would now be English military control, is just plain risible.

Sorry Robert, but your so-called easy solution poses more questions than it provides answers.

Allan A MacDougall
Bridge of Allan

DID they really think there was no consequence for voting No?

It seems to me that the way the 2014 independence referendum was spun by Unionist politicians and the media was that only a Yes vote had any consequences of note. All of them bad, of course. Consequences like we would be thrown out of the EU. Consequences like we wouldn’t have a viable currency and consequences like our economy would tank.

A No vote, by comparison, would ensure that the status quo would prevail. Order would be maintained and we would continue to enjoy the safe and secure governance and the generous largesse of a Westminster government.

Well, now, as we are all too well aware, the promised sunny, safe harbour has vanished in a flash. Leaving another nation in charge of our future has been disastrous.

So as the devolved nations wait over a week for Boris Johnson (minister for the Union) to chair a Cobra meeting at their request, and businesses face bankruptcy due to inaction by the missing-in-action, California-dreaming Chancellor, during the biggest health crisis in living memory, the Prime Minister is so deeply mired in corruption that each day brings a new challenge to his authority and thus to our security.

Now we are able to enjoy the consequences of that No vote in full.

Lucky, lucky us!

I Easton

READING Robbie Mochrie’s article “Why Scotland needs its own independent conservative party” in The National on December 18 left me wondering why indeed?

The examples he gave, such as future funding of child allowance, show clearly that Scotland has now diverged so far from conservative thinking that such a party would find little support in modern Scotland.

There is no point in discussing the format of a future conservative party in the context of the present Holyrood Parliament.

The National: Letters: Those who stood up against the mass hysteria of 2014 and beyond have shown enormous courage

The three main opposition parties are first and foremost Unionist, as was shown in 2014 by their emergence under the “Better Together” banner.

Our Scottish Parliament must be unique in having to accommodate the objectives of members from parties that are located, financed, controlled and base their policies on situations outwith its jurisdiction.

One thing for certain is that our independent Scotland must have a constitution that ensures that it will never again be within the power of members of Scotland’s Parliament to subjugate the sovereignty of the Scottish people to that of a foreign parliament.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry