ONE of the great joys of indyref1 was the all-inclusive nature of the campaign. It mattered not if you were English or Polish, if you had retired to Scotland to take advantage of our health or welfare system, or perhaps started a business here, or were still a teenager – if you were resident here. your vote counted.

Largely on that positive basis I subscribed to The National, but after a few months I instinctively felt that it was wrong in its approach so I gave it up. I took out an annual subscription at the end of last year but again I felt that something was very wrong with this paper.

Saturday’s article “Royals latest” crystallised the problem. Although I recognise it was a “tongue in cheek” piece and ending with the words “we didn’t think our readers would be interested so we didn’t read it” is intended as humour, it is in itself rather insulting to those who support the royals, many of whom will be elderly or have some connection to our armed forces.

Quite how insulting a section of Scots voters enhances the chances of gaining independence (the stated aim of the paper) is beyond me.

A couple of months ago the paper and its journalists were falling over themselves to “crow” about how silly our fishermen had been to trust Tory promises of a better deal. Not once did I see anything which might help to explain why fishermen would side with the Tories. The fact that Ted Heath had thrown UK fishing onto the table to overcome De Gaulle’s antipathy to the British was mentioned, but only in derogatory terms. Nothing about how having to share with seven became having to share with 27, and whilst costs kept going up, catches (and therefore income) kept reducing. Or how and why the independence offer of more of the same might not be as attractive as a hope of something better from the Tories.

The Tories play two games, one inside and one outside the parliament. Inside, in the knowledge that they and their supporters own most of the land, assets and through Westminster the important levers of power and finance, they play “wind up the Nats”. Get under their skin and have a laugh. Even the FM has fallen for this old trick, and the fact that some of the SNP’s MSPs are list members who don’t even have to worry about getting re-elected means it is money for old rope.

Outside they play the old empire “divide and rule”. Fishermen who have not been given a good reason to vote for independence are fair game, as are royalists, Gaelic speakers, islanders, financiers and businessmen to name but a few groups which are regularly targeted by the paper. In each case it is simply alienating more groups of voters.

The First Minister is correct in thinking now is not the time for indyref2. There is little evidence that many of these groups have been given a reason to vote for rather than against. If Scotland is to be independent then it needs to offer something for everyone to vote for that status, and that means that the editors of The National need to ensure a much more balanced and educational role in the paper.

I don’t speak Gaelic and have little time for it, but I recognise that having a second language is good for humans. I have less time for the royals, but again I recognise that others have and are entitled to a different opinion. There is only one journalist who is anything other than left or hard left of centre and his articles are regularly ridiculed. If The National is to get Scotland anywhere near its aim of independence it needs to broaden its base, and that means giving room to people who have UK views, if only to educate them as to why indy is the way forward. Otherwise it risks independence and its own future sliding into a barren wilderness akin to where Labour currently is.

Name and address supplied

I WOULD like to congratulate The National on the way in which it dealt with the release of a 1500-word statement by Kensington Palace on the forthcoming royal wedding. How right and how refreshing, and thank goodness we were all spared the usual sycophantic forelock-tugging of Her Majesty’s subjects.

I, for one, consider myself to be a free citizen of Scotland and subscribe to the philosophy of one Rabbie Burns in that “a man’s a man for a’ that”. Come our Independence Day I hope that we can move swiftly to a referendum on whether to retain or abolish the monarchy. After all, does not the Declaration of Arbroath reserve to us the right “ to put aside” the monarch in the event of their failure to defend our independence?

J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg

WHY doesn’t Bertie Armstrong face up to the fact that the UK Government is almost certain to do a deal with the EU on fishing? Is it because he can see only too well the horrors that lie ahead?

There is no doubt that prior to Brexit the UK will negotiate a deal on fishing with the EU that will last for a number of years, at least until after the next Holyrood election.

The likely scenario is that before the next Holyrood election the UK Government will announce that control of fishing is to be returned to the Scottish Government soon after that event.

The fishermen will be delighted and once again support the Tory Party; true to its promise, the UK Government will return control over fishing to the Scottish Government.

When the fishing agreement is due for renewal, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation present the Scottish Government with a list of proposals for negotiation with the EU. They are horrified to be told they have come to the wrong government, the Brexit fishing deal is in fact an International Trade Agreement between the UK and EU, and negotiations will of course be carried out at UK Government level with the EU.

John Jamieson
South Queensferry