THERESA May will never allow a second independence referendum. She can come up with excuses not to indefinitely. I think Nicola Sturgeon realises she and her foreign regime will have to be forced to, and so the forecasts of sabotage to the Brexit process might well carry substance. It would be justified by May’s contempt for the processes of justice. How many times have the Tories’ hands had to be forced, by unions, suffragettes and many others?

The Tories avoid having to acknowledge the moral case for others’ rights by making a sole, supreme, universal morality out of themselves. Think how they boast about themselves, and belittle, abnormalise, criminalise and try to obviate the other, internally and abroad. Their narcissism there reflects genuine belief and permits them to exercise the allied instinct, the inability to “see the other”, except as an obstruction to or an enemy of the psychopath, whatever real-world justice says. The “other” occupies no moral ground in their eyes and so has no claim to justice. So naively appealing to their non-existent sense of real justice is useless.

This is applied to whole “other” nations like Scotland. The just historical outcome for them is its elimination (not just using military methods) from history, attempting which has characterised their entire relationship with us from day one. This is what makes the means, the so-called Union, which in effect deletes Scotland with a word, so “precious” to them. May’s fellow Conservative Enoch Powell – who’s since been echoed even by “Christian” Englishmen like Peter Hitchens (and I could name a few others) – once said, “The English cannot tolerate the existence of any other culture, whether at home or abroad”. The perfect description of the unrelating, imperialist psychopath.

Loading article content

During the Hundred Years War, a French cardinal called the Scots “the antidote to the English”. Maybe we can once again help them with their ailment, in a friendlier way, even if the initial reluctance of the patient requires a little firmness.

Ian McQueen
Cargenbridge, Dumfries

THERE is something deeply troubling about what the Tory party is becoming under Theresa May and Ruth Davidson. If anything shows where the party is heading in Scotland, it’s the type of candidate they are attracting.

In Moray they have a defector from Ukip – a clear sign that they are now becoming Scotland’s version of Ukip – and in Highland they have a candidate quoted as saying: “The whole of Scotland is racist. It’s as racist as any country in Europe – in fact it’s a lot worse.”

But we shouldn’t be surprised the Tories are attracting such candidates when they have a leader in Scotland who thinks it’s okay to use euphemisms about “slaying” political opponents (at the end of a referendum where a politician was murdered), and talking of a democratic campaign as a “fratricide” (another word for civil war).

We also have the Tory finance spokesperson telling people to “shut up” and referring to a policy of the Scottish Government, which was elected by the public, as threatening to “start shooting the hostages”.

The Tory party is moving away from the centre towards the fringe of politics and seems determined to poison public debate with rude, abusive and extreme rhetoric. It is displaying the arrogance of a party which believes it can do what it likes to Scotland and get away with it.

With councils elections coming up in a few weeks, there is an opportunity to send this emerging Tory party the message that people don’t like this style of politics and definitely don’t want them having any responsibility over their local public services.

William Paterson


We can’t be distracted by politics of divide and rule

IT has been evident in recent weeks that the new line of attack from Unionists on the independence movement is an attempt to divide and conquer.

Many commentators and Unionist politicians have chosen to use the support for and against the EU by Yes supporters as a way of splitting the vote come the next referendum. They have had to abandon the lies from the previous campaign on all things EU. They now seek to exaggerate the divisions that may exist in some independence supporters’ minds on whether EU membership is good or bad. Or they point out the supposed contradiction on wanting to leave one union (UK) only to join another (EU), ignoring the paucity of this argument.

Let us be in no doubt as to their motives. Keeping Scotland in the Union is of paramount importance to their future.

Without Scotland they are diminished in the eyes of the world.

Without Scotland they are no longer the UK, and prestigious positions like the seat on the UN Security Council will be questioned. Without Scotland their negotiating position in the Brexit-EU talks is severely weakened. Without Scotland their authority in Nato is reduced –where will they store their Trident missiles, where will they hold their war games?

Without Scotland’s money even the BBC is reduced as we subsidise our southern neighbours – no surprise then that they are so pro-Union.

So do not let us be diverted from the most important task that we have faced in most of our lifetimes – making Scotland an independent nation. Arguments about membership of the EU, EFTA, Nato or even the Eurovision Song Contest can all be resolved once we have achieved independence.

James Mills

IT’S extraordinary that there’s talk of war with Spain over Gibraltar. Gibraltar was ceded to Britain “in perpetuity” under the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht. This also however gave Britain exclusive right to transport slaves to South America. Besides functioning as an important military base for British forces, it is 12 miles from the north coast of Africa, and is an important tax haven for the international and British ruling elite.

The Panama Papers exposed Gibraltar’s role in a web of offshore entities used by politicians and the super-rich to avoid paying taxes.

The “hard Brexit” right wing regard Brexit as an opportunity to complete Thatcher’s social counter-revolution. In this regard especially, there are direct parallels between the statements over Gibraltar and the Malvinas war. Thatcher exploited the Argentinean junta’s decision to invade to launch a jingoist campaign aimed at shoring up her government when it was involved in major industrial confrontations with the working class.

Likewise, May’s Conservative government is enforcing austerity under conditions of deep social polarisation and a major political and constitutional crisis created by Brexit. The attack on “another Spanish-speaking country” indicates that the ruling elite are prepared to launch another bloody military venture as a means to this end.

The implication of these developments go far beyond Thatcher’s one-sided war in the South Atlantic. Britain and Spain are both Nato members. The prospect of a confrontation between the two would involve not only a divided and fractious EU, but the US.

Alan Hinnrichs

THE hysteria over Gibraltar seems a very strange way of opening delicate and complex negotiations with the EU and I confess that the fuss, like most of the Brexit process, leaves me puzzled.

Surely it is in the interests of both Spain and Gibraltar to keep their common frontier open and to facilitate the free movement of people and goods? At the same time, it would be distinctly odd if the EU negotiators did not consult their member state, Spain, over this issue.

The British government claims to have no problem in cooperating with the government of Ireland over keeping open the border with Northern Ireland. Why then is there an objection to Spain playing a similar role vis-a-vis the Gibraltar border? After all, the long-term aims of both Ireland and Spain regarding reunification are well-known and I for one fail to see the distinction.

Peter Craigie