Patronising insults and Unionist myths fail to convince

Firstly, to Kevin’s claim that I and those like me who put independence at the top of our agenda are not only “naive” but naive “in the extreme”.

I found this comment as aggravatingly patronising and insulting as his column of November 11, in which he implied that those who cheered (as I did) Joe Biden’s presidential victory over Trump were a bunch of dullards who, unlike his perspicacious self, did not have a clue regarding the unsavoury realities of American politics.

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: It's not socialism that causes financial scandals – it's pure greed

Presumably, had Kevin lived stateside he would have abstained.

To return to Kevin’s angry columnar mudslinging regarding SNP politics, this reeks of Labour Unionism’s standard propaganda, aimed at the unthinking and unquestioning, that even in an independent Scotland the SNP will rule in perpetuity.

This taradiddle is usually peddled alongside the myth that pensioner poverty, child poverty, land ownership etc etc are all problems unheard of before a Scottish party came into power at Holyrood.

Perhaps Kevin should direct some of his anger at himself, as it appears that despite – as he always implies – being the most socialistic socialist in the history of socialism, he failed to notice the Labour party over decades was moving inexorably centre right.

Malcolm Cordell
Dundee

ANOTHER simplistic, often ill-informed and sometimes just pure wrong collection of bleats about SNP baaad from the wolf in sheep’s clothing Kevin McKenna, our very own fifth columnist in the Fourth Estate.

Having been a Labour voter for years, I can state that his diatribe about what is expected of those who leave to join the SNP is utter tripe. And I for one am sick and tired of him parading obliquely his ignorance of how the named person scheme was planned to operate.

Now we read that the SNP is in the process of “selling an independent Scotland to the corporate interests currently holding sway in Boris Johnson’s England”. Aye right, but according to Mr McKenna we need to sort them out now, as by the time we’ve got independence it will be too late. It looks very much like if Kevin McKenna has his way, that day is unlikely to dawn.

Douglas Turner
Edinburgh

REGARDING Kathleen Nutt’s article of November 24 (CND criticise ‘watering down’ of Trident motion), the offending motion allegedly reads: “We will be able to remove Trident nuclear weapons from our shores, which are an affront to basic decency with inhumane destructive power”.

If that is the motion, then I dare say that the conference committee should be sacked. Further, where is the SNP leadership that allows such dangerous drivel to be published? Yes, dangerous – in that the abolition of all nuclear weapons from the Clyde is a huge Yes vote winner, against which Unionists have no defence.

READ MORE: SNP CND hit out at ‘watering down’ of anti-Trident motion by conference body

Just to remind everyone, the Soviet Union tested a 50 megaton nuclear device way back in 1961 that was 3,000 times more destructive than the Hiroshima bomb. That was nearly 60 years ago, so what level of mad destruction is possible now?

I believe that nuclear conflict is likely to be begun accidentally and to be of very limited duration. Since most belligerents seek first to debilitate the enemy’s offensive capacity, the Clyde submarine bases and the majority of Scotland’s population will always have annihilation guaranteed in any nuclear event.

Faslane therefore is having Scotland facing a firing squad, with a bullseye over its heart. This is not so much of a NIMBY stance, but more like “not in my front room”.

With such a crap, meaningless and O-level-failed, motion, is the SNP serious about wanting independence?

Alan Adair
Blairgowrie

IS Shamima Begum really a “threat” to the almighty British state? Does HM Government really think that one traumatised sole individual, who as an impressionable young teenager made a mistake, can thwart MI5, MI6 and the whole internal security apparatus if she returns to the UK? If so, then it is time to reconstruct it? The security service is not fit for purpose!

There is a danger in using removal of state citizenship from Her Majesty’s subjects to punish perceived threats. Where does it end? Precedents have in English law the trend to become fixed practice.

Would that in future be extended to individuals of political parties and other organisations who are deemed to be a threat to the UK? Parties which represent independence for Wales and Scotland, even the English National Party, are they to be declared threats to the United Kingdom?

It seems that the Begum has lost rights to be in contact with her legal team. Is this true justice in an English court?

As an outside observer, one must begin to ask questions about the handling of this issue from a procedural point of view! Establishing “guilt” in one’s actions is one aspect, but to claim this person is a threat to the state is surely overblown.

John Edgar
Kilmaurs