IF I take any slight exception to Lesley Riddoch’s interesting account of the struggle for Finland’s independence (100 years after independence, Finland thrives, The National, December 7), it has nothing in common with that of Michael MacGregor (Letters, December 9), but rather that Finland’s war with the Soviet Union was not some minor dispute over a border province, as the former’s somewhat glib description rather implies, but actually an existential struggle for survival against an entirely unprovoked attempt by the dictator Stalin to annex the country whole and re-absorb it into his imperium. Scarce wonder then that such a substantial proportion of the Finnish population engaged themselves so doughtily to resist.

The Finns also had no reason previously to ask “permission” (gracious or otherwise) of Lenin to assert their sovereignty. Independence had been a significant movement for several decades, as evidenced for example by Sibelius’s magnificent tonal poem Finlandia, written in 1899 and often played as a surrogate criticism of the then Russian Empire, when open dissent was unwise (a recurrent Russian theme, it would seem).

Finally, in terms of unforeseen consequences, at the same time as the Soviets were attempting the forcible anschluss of Finland, it is necessary to remember that they were also busily annexing the Baltic States and carving up Poland in secret cahoots with, ahem, the selfsame decried “fascist hordes”. And thereby colluding in triggering the very war that eventually brought about so much of their own great destruction and loss of life.

If there are two lessons to be learnt, one is that it’s never wise for rulers to metaphorically play with matches in a gunpowder room (Trump please note), and history must be respected as a whole and not “half-truthed” for partisan ends.
Robert J Sutherland
Glasgow

THE International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo this weekend for focusing the world’s attention on the unimaginable, long-lasting suffering and irreparable environmental damage that nuclear weapons do, and for its work towards the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted this year with support from the majority of the world’s states.

In the Scottish Parliament, Bill Kidd MSP lodged a motion of congratulation, which acknowledged the First Minister’s handover of a ceremonial Scottish torch to be carried to Oslo to symbolise Scotland’s commitment to a nuclear-weapons-free world.

We believe that it is time for the UK Government to wake up and abandon its position in opposition to this life-affirming treaty, and get in tune with Scotland and the majority world opinion by signing the Treaty and abandoning Trident.
Janet Fenton
for ICAN partners and supporters in Scotland

IT’S a cause for concern that the history and/or terminology repeated by some independence supporters inadvertently perpetuates Unionist mythology. For instance, in a recent article by Hamish MacPherson (Hunted like game in a downfall of their own making, The National, December 5), he stated that Scotland was incorporated into England by the Tender of Union of 1651-52. It wasn’t.

The Tender of Union was a draft proposal. The actual Bill of Union failed in 1653 and 1654 and did not pass through the English parliament and become law until 1657, so there was only a legal pretence of union briefly during 1657-60.

Throughout this period Scotland remained a kingdom under foreign military occupation and the Scots of the day called it “The Inglis Usurpation”, which may be translated as “illegal English occupation”.

Also, the term Act of Union, as used in relation to 1707, is quite incorrect. The only Act of Union is the one that took place between the so-called UK and Ireland in 1800.

This is very important because it is an internationally agreed treaty between sovereign states which is still the basis of our constitutional and legal status.

Unionists perpetuate the “Act” to downplay or airbrush out Scottish sovereignty for obvious reasons.
Linda Horsburgh
Dundee