JIM Sillars, in his letter of October 10, points out the folly of campaigning for “further devolution” instead of unfettered independence from an economically declining UK. I’m sure he’s right: until there is a sizeable majority in favour of outright independence, Scotland will remain under the yoke of Westminster. Currently the polling figures say 53% of Scots wish to remain in the Union, so what is required to convince more than half of the population they will be better off with independence?

I know, for me, one of the things that seriously excites my angst is the constant drip-feed of innuendo, falsehood and downright lies spewed out by the Westminster/Whitehall establishment. It’s past the time when this rubbish should be challenged: starting with a clearly researched illustration that Scotland is NOT subsidised by Westminster but the reverse! This must be shouted loudly enough for the 53% to hear!

Representatives of the SNP should pay no attention to the Unionist xenophobic twerps who keep parroting the “get on with the day job” mantra. The “day job”, for all the independence advocates, is working to convince the 53% that they are being unfairly exploited and there must be an end to it. This 53% must be shown that, within the Union, when the economic sun has shone brightly Scotland has been pushed into the shade, and when there have been heavy economic downpours, Scotland’s umbrella has been left in the hall stand!

The latest overture from Starmer’s gang, following the Rutherglen result, is that “Labour are the party of change here in Scotland”. Well, I have always held the belief that if you want to forecast what behaviour you might expect you should look at what went before. In 1987 Scotland was represented by 72 Westminster seats. In the General Election that year, Labour took 50 of them but Thatcher romped into power with a 145-seat majority So what did Kinnock and Labour do in the face of this democratic deficit? Nothing, other than to win themselves the title “The Feeble Fifty”!

On occasions when I’ve tried to sway a Unionist or convince a “don’t know” I have heard the line “but you can’t believe any politician…” On this point, I have told them, I wholeheartedly agree! In order to be a successful politician the skill of obfuscation, dissembling, innuendo, mendacity and downright lying are prerequisites. Therefore, wouldn’t it be better, from a Scottish point of view, to have these mountebanks and public-purse defalcators closer to the reach of those they purport to represent, rather than 300 miles away in a foreign land in the midst of a culture which is so at odds with Scottishness?

Ned Larkin
Inverness

SCOTLAND signed up to a treaty with England 316 years ago, the result of which is that the two countries have one government based at Westminster.

There are numerous clauses in said treaty, however. There is a clear statement to the effect that all parts of that United Kingdom, under that Westminster government, must be treated equally. Currently, Northern Ireland is effectively in the EU single market, Scotland is not! That is an undeniable and blatant breach of the treaty.

International law has been broken. One does not need a vote to act on this matter.

Rescinding the treaty, which our MPs have a duty to do, cancels the single-government situation at a stroke, and as a consequence cancels London’s legal right to continue handling Scotland’s finances.

Then begins the task of separating our finances from theirs.

England will be very very slow to do that, it’ll pay them billions of pounds to be slow.

It will all come right though, the international courts will see to that.

So, Scotland regains its independence because the law was broken by England to Scotland’s significant disadvantage, NOT because some people wanted independence.

Our MPs alone can do this. They are responsible guardians for Scotland. The question has to be asked, “Why are they not doing it?”

Christopher Bruce
Taynuilt

MANY letters in this paper speak of pleas to all the indy-supporting bodies to come together for the common good and the common aim. However they also speak of the apparent reluctance of said bodies to lift our “Olympian flame” by meeting each other. Since the heidbummers seem intransigent, is this now time for the tail tae wag the dug?

I would think that the initiative could well come from the various Yes groups around the country. I think this because Yes groups have at their meetings SNP, Green and Alba members and those who are of no party but are dyed-in-the-wool indy folk.

If a group had a meeting and invited two of the three parties’ office bearers or officials to attend then I believe that it could demonstrate the power of feeling for indy outweighing party loyalty. This would also inform parties of grassroots feelings and concerns.

Perhaps The National could be notified of such meetings for publication.

M Ross
Aviemore