JUST as there is no limit to the human capacity to practice self-deception, there is no limit to our hypocrisy. Thus, we read that Lord Frost denounces as “morally wrong” the desire for Scottish independence. This evocation of the category of morality from an individual who preaches the moral nihilism of nuclear extermination is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

Like all supporters of the Union, Lord Frost also supports nuclear weapons. Periodically, these people hold a regulatory loyalty test, asking anxiously “would you actually press the button?” Poor, inhuman automata, they admit yes. Because everybody who believes in nuclear deterrence must give the same answer.

READ MORE: Lord Frost brands Scottish independence 'morally wrong', calls for devolution to 'evolve back'

Trident is the ultimate evil. Human malevolence has no more heinous manifestation. Trident not only promises unimaginable human carnage, it guarantees ecological catastrophe. The explosion of the arsenal stored at Coulport would in effect sterilise the planet.

It is Trident that is “morally wrong’, not Scottish independence. Does the noble Lord really not see that? Because of their immorality, the world has banned nuclear weapons. On July 7 2017 at the United Nations, the majority of the world’s nations agreed to ban all nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons calls on all nations to undertake never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. That is now international law, from which there is no derogation.

To support the nations of the world who uphold the basic morality of rejecting all weapons of mass destruction would be reason enough for supporting Scottish independence. Because it is morally right.

Brian Quail

I DOUBT very much there will be a final or definitive response to the letters regarding Tom Devine and Anas Sarwar and their points of view. Within colonialism and imperialism, the issue of class – who benefitted, or rather who was in a position to benefit, and which class within society would automatically be exploited – should always be taken into consideration.

Think on that in the 21st century we are witnessing the classic “divide and rule” tactic that has served the UK so well over its centuries of territorial exploitation and subjugation: social, economic and cultural. Perhaps someone believes now is the time for the Union to create another diversionary tactic, with a vacuum at the heart of Westminster, divisions across the pro-indy political spectrum and no pan-Scottish cohesion in regards the grassroots/indy movement.

READ MORE: Analysis by Tom Devine and Tom Arthur is missing the question of class

I was fortunate enough to see the eminent Indian (former) diplomat Sasha Tharoor in Edinburgh a few years back, speaking on the various threads that are necessary across and within colonialism for it to prosper and succeed. I remember the parallels I took from his book Inglorious Empire: What the British did to India (2017). It is a glorious read demonstrating much, but includes a telling example from the East India Company official John Sullivan, writing in the 1840s: “The little

court disappears – the capital decays – trade languishes – the capital decays – the people are impoverished – the Englishman flourishes, and acts like a sponge, drawing up riches from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down upon the banks of the Thames”.

India was neither too wee, too poor, nor too stupid. Tharoor showed that “at the beginning of the 18th century India’s share of the world economy was 23%. By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to just over 3%. The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredation in India.”

READ MORE: Tom Devine defends Anas Sarwar over Pakistan independence trolling

I wonder, then, who has governed Scotland since the 1700s and to whose overall benefit? I wonder where the accumulated, historical wealth resides now? Is it too simplistic to draw similarities between the exploitation of India’s natural resources – grains, raw cotton, raw silk, tea, sugar – and Scotland’s? Who will produce a book along the lines of Tharoor’s to show the depletion of Scotland’s natural wealth over the centuries within this unequal Union? The very “wealth” that has drained away.

But divide and rule doesn’t always succeed, not even here. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi visited England in the 1930s and was invited to visit the cotton town of Darwen in Lancashire. The mill owners wanted him to see the hardship being suffered by the East Lancashire textile industry, following the Indian independence movement’s boycott of British goods, in the hopes that Ghandi would call off the boycott to alleviate the poverty. When challenged, he merely replied: “You have no idea what poverty is.” The movement didn’t deviate, but in turn, Ghandi did connect with the mill workers through the commonality of poverty and exploitation.

The powerful will always try to fragment, disrupt, and distort the emerging opposition. It’s neither new nor unusual. But it’s up to us to be wary, watchful and determined. The more they do, the more we know they fear the inevitable outcome.

Selma Rahman