DURING the last week, in the face of evil, love and compassion have been triumphant. While it is impossible to comprehend the mentality that leads a human being to carry out such an atrocity in the name of religion, we must conclude that in all the great world religions love is the central doctrine, not hate.

It is the minority fanatics and old religious extremists who radicalise the innocent and impressionable young who should also be hunted down.

As the political campaign resumes, the tragic and mindless events in Manchester should remain uppermost in our hearts and minds. These events should not impact on the election otherwise we are handing the terrorists a victory. Opposing views may be passionately expressed but this should be done in a civilised and courteous manner, with perhaps a dash of humour!

From a Scottish standpoint, with the SNP remaining the highest polling party — although this is not evident from the daily anti-SNP attacks by the London-controlled press and TV — the choice is between the narrow nationalism of post-Brexit Tory Britain and the outward-looking, positive SNP working towards a social democratic world order.

This is definitely a UK General Election and not an indy referendum, although given the Tory obsession with the Union their Scottish manifesto can be summed up as “Vote No”.

However, Theresa May’s “strong and stable” leadership is under fire as she is not being particularly strong or stable in answering policy questions or taking part in media debates. In fact democracy is in danger of being spurned by the Tories, as repetitive soundbites are deemed enough for a tired and jaded electorate.

Theresa “now is not the time” May has called this snap election, with casual disregard for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, not in the interests of the UK but purely in the interest of the Tory Party.

With her hard line towards the EU and the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland over Brexit, this is a sham election about consolidating Tory power in light of the coming recession, which under her leadership is inevitable.

Pensions and winter fuel payments will be squeezed, along with further benefit cuts, human rights legislation rescinded and with rising prices and lower wages there will be an increase in taxes to stem the growing national debt.

The only party that can stand up for Scotland in Westminster and co-ordinate an effective anti-Tory opposition is the SNP. Therefore, for the good of Scotland and indeed the UK, vote SNP on June 8.

Remember, Ruth Davidson was the only Scottish political leader not to protest against the UK Government’s abhorrent rape clause and also the only one to support the iniquitous bedroom tax.

In light of this and other Unionist blocks on Scottish democracy, it is fortunate that a mandate for a second independence referendum has been secured by the Scottish Government. It did take two referendums to secure a limited devolved Scottish Parliament.

However, it is still surprising that some of my English friends wonder why Westminster wishes to keep the Union as they believe we are heavily subsidised by them.

In actual fact, Westminster knows it would lose billions of pound annually from Scotland’s food and drink industries, renewable energy, not to mention our oil, which still flows with practically no benefit to Scotland.

I can only commend to you Winnie Ewing’s historic words of 50 years ago: “Stop the world. Scotland wants to get on.”
Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I AM politically opposed to Jeremy Corbyn but I have been for years now thinking thoughts much aligned to his recent comments regarding the causes and the possible ways to reduce if not stop the so-called “Islamic terrorism” that has spread over Europe and much of our world. Every related death, whether it is one or 50, is a tragedy for those parents, relatives and friends who are left behind to mourn their loss.

Mr Corbyn indicates that the causes and answers of the problem lie further afield than the UK. I have to agree with him there.

To elaborate on that point, I have to go back to the many years of “terror” experienced in English cities during the “Irish Problem” and the resultant IRA bombings in Northern Ireland and England. Then, just as now, the answer to the “terrorism” did not lie in the backstreets of Belfast, London, Birmingham, Liverpool or Manchester or with the Irish or Roman Catholic communities who lived there. The problem and answers lay further afield, but not so far away that time — in Ireland. That was where the answer and solution to the problem lay, and that was where the problem of “IRA and Unionist terrorism” was resolved.

To agree with that prognosis relative to “so-called Islamic” terrorism, the people who were historically involved and those who are currently in charge of the ongoing “war on terror” would have to admit to being on the wrong track. That may prove to be the most difficult part of the solution. Maybe those people should put a bit of time aside to think about the ongoing problem and the loss of life both here in the UK and abroad.

With talk about a possible World War Three, I think the world is oblivious to the fact that it had already started. I was on a troopship en route from Hong Kong to Malaya when the Korean war started in 1950. It still drags on. When will we ever learn?

My heartfelt condolences go out to those who have lost loved ones in the Manchester atrocity.
Dave Beveridge
Address supplied

JEREMY Corbyn is indeed courageous to pick this moment to start talking about the underlying causes of terrorism, instead of knee-jerk reactions which usually involve more retributive violence. In the sad aftermath of the Manchester bombing, what better time to look at the paradoxes which we seem able to live with?

Foreign fighters in Syria are making the problem worse, but we from the West are “foreign fighters”! When have our frequent interventions ever led to “mission accomplished”, “freedom and democracy”, or any soundbite which didn’t turn out to be hollow?

This Manchester bombing makes us even more determined to stand up to terrorism. But why then do we think that bombing so-called terrorists in Middle Eastern countries is going to make them less, not more, determined to stand up to us? We have to admit that in recent history the West’s achievement has been to create the conditions in which [Daesh] and similar organisations flourish.

More should be done to stop young people being radicalised, but what is being done to stop the radicalisation of the political successors of Tony Blair and George Bush? Or to stop the cynical radicalism of the huge arms industry, whose huge income is dependent on war, and which (through governments in the West) often arms both sides as well as our own “peacemakers”?
Derek Ball
Bearsden

VERY disappointed to see The National falling in line with the Tory press with the headline “Corbyn terror comments cause outcry” (May 27).

Why not, to quote from your own article, Corbyn’s “carefully worded” and “nuanced” speech on “war on terror” “defended” by First Minister?
Sarah Glynn
Dundee

IF, 15 years ago, any serious politician had proposed to invade and destabilise Iraq, to create a divisive and lengthy civil war in Syria and to turn Libya into a chaotic failed state, I fancy they would have been laughed out of office.

Yet this is what the Western powers have done. Which prompts the question: who has benefited?
Peter Craigie
Edinburgh