THE Prime Minister thinks he is leading the UK into a world of high productivity, skilled employees and high pay – all presumably based on sophisticated technology as far as one can judge from his pronouncements.

This is the direct opposite of what we need to do to survive on this planet. We need to make fewer artefacts and these we do make must be made to last. Each of us must be able to use our full range of physical and mental attributes to maximise our personal contribution to society instead of being trained to one ability. We must strive to live thriftily and to take care of our own and the environment’s health.

Thinking that we can escape reality through invention is another chimera. Machines need energy, which may be in many forms and is expensive to create and store. We have to adapt to use it in the most efficient way. Compare driving along a motorway – selfish, wasteful and stressful – with walking – always warming, often social and certainly healthy but an extremely effective use of your breakfast and thus of the planet’s resources.

Iain WD Forde

Scotlandwell

I HEARD the initialism IPPR yesterday, as we gathered together for our SNP electioneers’ meeting in Falkirk’s town hall car park. My ears pricked up. I had heard of this organisation before when reading Gavin Esler’s book, How Britain Ends: English Nationalism And The Rebirth Of The Four Nations. The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a progressive think tank based in London and is an independent registered charity.

In 2012 the IPPR published The Dog That Finally Barked: England As An Emerging Political Community. In it the authors argued that an emerging English political identity may over time come to challenge the institutions and practices of the UK more profoundly than anything happening in the so-called Celtic fringe, even Scottish independence.

The research undertaken by the IPPR focuses on the demise of a British identity in England, with people identifying more and more with an exclusively English identity.

This is to be welcomed and exploited by the Scots in their pursuit of independence. Support for English nationalism and self-government on a more balanced, decentralised regional basis would lead to a better “levelling up” and fairer distribution of wealth and resources in England and a happier English electorate.

One can see clearly that as the momentum for the reunification of Ireland gains support and the economic realities created there by the Brexit disaster become more and more crippling, Northern Ireland will gradually be assimilated into a stronger and more prosperous United Irish Republic. The “British” ties with Scotland and England will eventually finally be extinguished, giving all four nations peace and harmony.

Dave Finlay

Falkirk

IS the “Old Firm” rivalry bad for Scottish football in general, for the national team in particular and even for the Old Firm themselves?

I think this may be the case.

My thinking goes as follows. Firstly, a large chunk of the money available to Scottish football is controlled by the Old Firm and because they only have one main rival, when one falls behind the other there is pressure on that management to quickly claw back into contention. This often results in “ready-made” players being bought in, largely, from outwith Scotland – resulting in a net outflow of funds from the Scottish game. Bringing on your own players is a time-consuming and uncertain business. This is not to say that other Scottish teams don’t seek players from outside Scotland, but I guess this effect is proportionately much less.

As regards the national team, I remember a time when Old Firm players dominated the team. If you look at the current squad, very few of these players have come via an Old Firm academy. (The figures I got for 24 of the current squad were Celtic with three, Rangers with 2, Aberdeen with 3, Queens Park with 2 and Partick Thistle with two.)

I’m also old enough to remember when Scotland exported players, mainly to England, leading to a net inflow of money to Scottish football.

Compared to teams from other smaller European countries, the Old Firm’s performances in Europe have been relatively poor, despite their continuous ability to qualify for these competitions. Did their greatest success not come when most of their players were home-reared, with a few extra poached from other Scottish teams? Could this be because of lack of competition from the other cash-starved teams in Scotland?

I’ve deliberately ignored the sectarian aspect of the Old Firm, although this probably feeds into the pressure on managers to keep abreast of their rivals.

Is there a way out of this situation? There is, and it would involve rewarding teams adequately for producing their own talent.

RWM

E Ayrshire

SO Ibrox should have been sold?

I never could understand the GERS figures.

Richard Easson

Dornoch