Reading about King Charles's new sword transported me back to 1603

During the service, Dame Katherine Grainger will bear the new Elizabeth Sword, with the sceptre carried by Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the crown will be carried by the Duke of Hamilton.

READ MORE: Scottish Government to pay for 'second' coronation - plus £22k sword

The new sword cost £22,000 to make and was apparently worked on by a number of expert Scottish craftspeople. Beauty, as they say, is “in the eye of the beholder” but perhaps some of its cost could be recovered by hiring it out as a prop for the latest Game Of Thrones sequel (pun intended).

I suppose the First Minister felt obliged to say: “Designed and crafted with care by some of Scotland’s finest artisans, the Elizabeth Sword is a fitting tribute to the late Queen as Scotland prepares to welcome the new King and Queen.” However, I cannot agree with him (on this and a few other things) and I will not be watching the no doubt extensive TV coverage of this comical event.

In stark contrast to this nonsense, my local maternity hospital has just launched an urgent appeal for donations of baby clothes. You have to pause and just think about that for a moment. Here we are in Scotland in the year 2023 and some parents are finding it difficult to clothe their new baby. Sometimes it just feels like we are living in 1603.

Brian Lawson
Paisley

IT was in 2016 that the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) voluntarily gave chapter and verse on why Scotland and England had very different constitutional laws, stating clearly that unlike England where parliament is sovereign, in Scotland the people are sovereign over any king or parliament.

Then in July 2018, the Claim of Right was debated in the House of Commons with the following result: “This House acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.”

READ MORE: Orkney council to look at proposals to leave UK and become Norwegian territory

Then out of the blue, and only four years later in 2022, much to everyone’s surprise, Lord Reed, president of the UKSC, claimed that England had sovereignty over Scotland. My response at the time was that Lord Reed couldn’t have his cake and eat it. I probably should have addressed that remark to the whole court rather than any individual in it.

It all hinges on an international treaty, hundreds of years old and deemed at the time to be “the end of an auld sang”, that is as viable and coherent in the 21st century as on the day it first saw the light of the 18th. It says inter alia that Scots law is inviolable and immutable, and that includes Scotland’s Claim of Right Act, stemming from the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, further justified by the Scottish Government in 1689, and ratified by the English Parliament during the Acts of Union of 1707.

READ MORE: Catalonia watches and waits ahead of snap Spanish election

Lord Reed’s statement led immediately to all sorts of conjecture. Had someone pointed out to the charlatans at Westminster that they had unlawfully misappropriated hundreds of billions of pounds worth of Scotland’s assets because they did not have sovereignty in Scotland? Had they, in a panic to save their bacon, compounded their felony by breaking the treaty? There are many examples of England being in breach of it in the past with impunity. Why should it be any different now?

There is something seriously amiss with the fact that the UKSC and the de facto English Government at Westminster had recognised and accepted Scotland’s sovereignty since the inception of the treaty in 1707 until July 2018.

The UKSC sang us another song in 2016 after more than 300 years of being in a treaty. But now the ultimate verse of it has changed dramatically, and a large part of it was no longer worth the paper it was written on. Would they care to explain that change to the Scottish people, and why an unlawful breach of the treaty is now apparently deemed by them to be legitimate according to Lord Reed in 2022?

Bruce Moglia
via email

THE following is the first paragraph on the “wiki” page for the word “oppression”: “Oppression is malicious or unjust treatment or exercise of power, often under the guise of governmental authority or cultural opprobrium. It is related to regimentation, class society and punishment. Oppression may be overt or covert, depending on how it is practiced. Oppression refers to discrimination when the injustice does not target and may not directly afflict everyone in society but instead targets or disproportionately impacts specific groups of people.”

Given the foregoing, I don’t consider it’s unreasonable to deem the UK Tory government’s actions towards our independence-supporting government, and by default those of us that voted for it, to be a form of oppression. How else can you describe a democratic mandate to hold a referendum being totally ignored, as well as loads of other examples such as interfering with the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and the Deposit Return Scheme, among others?

READ MORE: Labour led by right-wing illiberal group engaged in witch-hunt says MP

To make matters worse, far from reporters in the media, including in Scotland, robustly challenging UK Tory politicians for this state of affairs, they have unashamedly turned the matter on its head, ignoring the injustice, then grilling SNP politicians on what they intend to do about the matter, as if it’s their fault!

Normally folk are made to feel outsiders in their community if, for example, they have extreme political beliefs. However, to be made to feel an outsider for having the temerity to support your own country’s government is a very sinister development. On the contrary, supporters of Unionist parties that lost the last election receive total respect and effectively gold stars from the “Scottish” media as they enthusiastically wave their wee Union Jack flags on the Royal Mile at yet another damned royal event. These folk definitely ain’t oppressed! They are the chosen ones!

In my view, both BBC Scotland and STV News are on a path of deliberately and systematically doing their utmost to damage the SNP at the next UK General Election and help bring about a Unionist-supporting Scottish Government at the next Scottish one. They are definitely a part of our oppression.

Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife

THAMES Water is collapsing under a mountain of debt and the other nine English water companies are in similar hock. English consumers pay the highest water charges, leaks are rife and waterways are full of excrement. Privatisation was sold to the public as an efficiency measure – you’ll pay less for better quality water. The government knew it was a lie. It was a multi-billion-pound wealth transfer from consumers to shareholders.

Shares were priced well below value to guarantee a successful sale. People cashed out their profits and the firms were snapped up by private equity, institutional investors and large foreign infrastructure firms. Ever since, companies have been loaded with debt to enable large shareholder returns while investors have been exposed to minimal risk, and a flaccid Ofwat passively watched. The FT admitted that privatisation was little more than an organised rip-off.

READ MORE: Thames Water crisis 'shows Scotland right to keep water public'

How did Scotland dodge this bullet? More than 90% of Scots opposed water privatisation. So, in March 1994, Strathclyde Regional Council organised the biggest council referendum ever held. People were asked, “Do you agree with the government’s proposal for the future of water and sewerage services?” Over 70% of eligible voters turned out and 97.2% said NO. The UK Government dared not proceed with less than 3% support. Scotland’s water stayed in public hands, which is why our water is cheaper and cleaner than England’s.

But London got its revenge. The Tories abolished Strathclyde Regional Council in 1996, probably because it stood up to the UK Government.

Westminster is coming for our water again, just as it came for our oil and renewables. To stop the theft, the Scottish people must reclaim their voice and restore their sovereignty.

Leah Gunn Barrett
Edinburgh

THE news that more than seven in 10 Scottish businesses are struggling with skills shortages, but almost 40% don’t have programmes in place for under-represented groups, highlights the considerable opportunities being missed by Scotland’s employers (June 29).

This Business Barometer Report, published by The Open University and British Chambers of Commerce outlines the need for businesses to become better at hiring those from these groups, such as young people who are disabled or care experienced. The rewards of getting these individuals into work are well worth it. They bring passion, skills, dedication and drive to the workplace. This also allows businesses to grow and fulfil their potential, delivering economic growth.

Employers are currently missing out on an immense untapped talent pool, and never has it been more important for businesses, the Government and training providers to work together to address this.

We would urge Scotland’s employers to look beyond the label and take on an employee who may have an additional need, taking advantage of the excellent skills offered by many of these young people.

The Scottish Children’s Services Coalition: Kenny Graham, Falkland House School; Lynn Bell, LOVE Learning; Stephen McGhee, Spark of Genius; Niall Kelly, Young Foundations

I WONDER if anyone at Murrayfield saw the irony of their announcement regarding the 30 young male players contracted to FOSROC Scottish Rugby Academy on the same day as the report into attitudes at the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB).

Let’s look at the positives at Scottish Rugby – gender bias is being addressed in a very positive fashion, racism also. Disability awareness is on the increase with clubs promoting mixed ability games and wheelchair rugby. Young player safeguarding is second to none. However, where Scottish Rugby leaves itself open to criticism is in the source of its recruitment for the young male game.

READ MORE: New biennial tournament for Six Nations and SANZAAR teams

As noted in the report to the ECB, there is a bias towards players from private fee-paying schools. This seems to be the position that Scottish Rugby has also taken. Of the 30 players announced, I wonder how many were educated in state schools? Given that a large number of state schools run Scottish Rugby Union sponsored schools of rugby, you would think that the national youth squads would reflect that.

Mathematics will show that in plain numbers there are more players in the game from state schools than private yet the academies do not reflect that.

Only once this situation is resolved can Scottish Rugby really claim to be truly inclusive.

Robert McIntosh
via email