AS I watched yesterday’s Westminster charade I was reminded of TS Eliot’s “human kind cannot bear too much reality.”

The debate was apparently on the legality of humanitarian intervention, and at least May’s alternative self-defence argument (murder of Salisbury family pets) was not used.

The opportunity was eagerly embraced for great oratory on the barbarity of chemical weapons: an evil dictator using them at a most disadvantageous moment to himself; the desperate need to alleviate human suffering in this particular place; and justification for instant punishment to uphold international law.

None wanted to recognise that they were not terribly important mouths in a geopolitical imperial scheme, “Project For The New American Century”, devised by a neo-con group in the US around 20 years ago. As Karl Rove said chillingly in 2004 after Bush’s first “mission accomplished” in Iraq: “We are an empire now and ... create our own reality.”

Trump has typically repeated the “accomplished” line, and Nikki Haley, US representative to the UN, tells the world “US troops will not leave Syria until goals are accomplished.” So much achieved along a blood-stained trail.

Even if the Westminster Parliament is reluctant to link its oratory to the New Reality, it cannot be unaware of false “intelligence” and the ongoing carnage of its application, especially in Iraq and Libya. Or that Bush’s “Axis of Evil” includes the current target.

As an octogenarian who can recall the consequences of false realities of the thirties and our post-war idealism in the creation of UN, Geneva Conventions etc. I feel some guilt that my generation has somehow wandered from the goal of peace in allowing such inhumanity and breach of law to recur. Especially when President Eisenhower in 1961 warned us of the danger of the military/industrial complex.

To challenge those publicly stated neo-con goals, is it perhaps time for a geopolitical MOT check? The repair might just start with the farce of five permanent members of the UN Security Council with predictable vetoes.

Murdo M Grant
Rosemarkie

I TOTALLY agree with the comments made by Vince Littler (Letters, April 17). I too am a “new” Scot, having moved here from England 15 months ago with my husband and two cats.

We love being in this beautiful country; it is so generous and inclusive and we live in a very nice community. I have always wanted Scotland to become independent from England and Westminster. Westminster has never given Scotland the recognition and respect it deserves, and now is the time to sever the links once and for all. It cannot come too soon for me.

Susan Rowberry
Duns, Berwickshire

THE wording on the new Declaration of Arbroath needs a change. My hubby, an activist for indy, was not born here, he’s English, so the references to land of birth need to be changed or risk the Yes movement offending and possible losing thousands of supporters like him, or being attacked from the other side as it flies in the face of our claims of an inclusive society.

This is not about changing the original wording on the Declaration of Arbroath – we couldn’t even if we wanted to because it’s a valuable historical document of which I have a copy on my wall.

This is about a new proposed one that wants only people born in Scotland to be able to sign it and that does not reflect the modern, inclusive, progressive society we have and want to develop. We are a multi-cultural society and things we produce should show that. Harking back to blood-and-soil nationalism of the past just gives the other side ammunition to use against us.

Evelyn Bell
via thenational.scot

I DO not know what is planned, but it seems to me that getting a few million signatures on the New Treaty of Arbroath would be a splendid preparation for the forthcoming independence referendum. It would provide a focus for the efforts of activists, capture the imagination of our population, and provide a basis of knowledge of our support independently from opinion polls.

Victor Moncrieff
Lanark

WE don’t need to waste time waiting for Nicola or creating our own wee red lines for an independent Scotland. We can win indyref2 by making being British intolerable and we can start doing that right now.

Next time you’re at the hairdresser, start with: “What a state Britain’s in.” Or at the bowls: “Did you read how the English took over Scotland once before?” At tea break: “Do you realise its two years since the vote and we’ve still no idea what Brexit will do?”

We can get to 60 per cent before indyref2 even starts if we make Britain a hissing and a byword first.

Randall Foggie
Kirkcaldy

I SWITHERED about submitting this (I’ll suffer pelters) but here goes. Mrs May the Prime Minister played a blinder in parliament on presenting her case for the intervention in Syria as well in defending her decision not to recall parliament.

I don’t agree with her, but she batted away with effortless ease the ineffectual response from Jeremy Corbyn.

The poor soul is increasingly becoming what he is, an ageing 1970s auld leftie out of tune and out of time.

On the other hand, the SNP’s heavyweight front-bench team, very ably led by Ian Blackford and Joanna Cherry, consistently demonstrate sound, mature opposition leadership, suggesting that an independent Scotland would be in safe and sure hands.

Thom Cross
Carluke