I HAVE to say I am beyond outraged at the callous, entitled, extravagant and wholly unwarranted waste of money on the Britnatfest display of complete indifference to the parlous state of our country under the rule of the over-entitled few Oxbridge types, and the unfeeling state of the monarchy’s understanding of real-life issues for the British people. I have to say I use the term British very loosely – I do not believe that all four of the EQUAL partners feel the same.

How much money has this REALLY cost? How many hip ops, heart ops etc could this have funded? How many hungry children could that money have fed? How many affordable homes could have been built when we have God knows how many people living on the street? How much harking back to empire can we take? It is over, gone and thank God for that. The most cringeworthy period of the great British story one could imagine. I am not proud of the empire, I am beyond ashamed.

READ MORE: We need to maximise the Yes vote, so let’s not alienate royalists

I am not a subject of wee Betty, I am a citizen of the country that is Scotland, an ancient kingdom. She only has her position by dint of her ancestors being the strongest thugs of the time. As to the entitlement of her extended family? Well that’s another thread. As to the current government, I shall have to word very carefully. I could call out all manner of wrongdoing, nay outright illegality and criminality, but hey, we’ve heard it before and Boris seems as Teflon as Tony.

I am a retired history teacher, and I have to say that over the past while I have become increasingly terrified by the way our government has been dealing with issues, from Rwanda to existing laws; that one doesn’t suit, we’ll just change it. Where do we go from here when our “Fuhrer” can just deal on his whim? Who is going to put a stop to him?

READ MORE: Platinum Jubilee embarrassment as images reveal dismal turnouts in Scotland

My children tell me to stop watching the news, they are worried about my blood pressure, but I cannot let all this go. I eat up news, I follow all the news on Ukraine, which is the most worrying development of recent years. Unfortunately, if you cast your eye around the world, the move to the right is not confined to us. It is a very worrying trend. I had hoped never to have to deal with the rise of fascism in my lifetime, having spent an early life talking and reading and analysing it. If nothing, nobody can effect changes soon, God help us all. I don’t want to be here if the world reverts to accepted fascist dictatorship.

Wendy Wilson
via email

I VERY much agree with James Duncan (Letters, Jun 4) regarding a slimmed-down monarchy being the best for Scotland. To judge monarchy by the actions of the Windsors is wrong and we should look to how the monarchies of our neighbours work.

It’s a bit ironic that we talk about Scandinavian-style monarchies when that style of monarchy actually originated in Scotland, where the monarch was regarded as the first among equals on a par with his people.

READ MORE: Anger over former Strictly judge Len Goodman's 'foreign muck' comments on BBC Jubilee show

While the Windsors cost the taxpayer more than £100 million, most European monarchies cost around £12-14m while Spain and Sweden cost £9m and £8m respectively – far cheaper than most republics. When Norway became independent they decided to have a king as it was felt that a monarch can unite a country better than a politician, and if independence is to work then unity is essential.

Also, Scotland is the oldest monarchy in Europe and that is something to be proud of. After independence, by all means let the people choose between a monarchy and a republic, but the question on the monarchy should also ask if we want to retain the Windsors or have another royal family, preferably descended from the Stuarts.

John Blyth
Edinburgh

THE polemics anent the monarchy and the house of Windsor were remarkable. What has the sovereign done to deserve such ire?

What I saw was envy, chip on the shoulder and vituperation. The Queen has served Britain faithfully and well as a constitutional monarch. She reigns under the guidance of her ministers and very rarely lets slip publicly her personal political opinion.

You dragged the Earl of Inverness into the equation, something which has no relevance. You claim that public funds were used to settle the action against him. Were public funds used, or did the Queen from her own purse assist her son? Mention was made of the monarchy’s drain on the public purse. Is it a drain? Are you aware of how the civil list, as it was called, was funded? The monarch’s funding is still very largely paid for from revenue from the Royal Estates, the personal property of the Crown. I realise that the chip on the shoulder would argue that royalty is not entitled to such estates, but it should be noted that just like everyone else, the sovereign has civil rights.

Though I am fundamentally opposed to your take on the monarchy and find it expressed offensively, unlike some some of your more childish readers I will not stamp off in a huff never reading The National again; you do valuable work for the independence of our country.

R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian

I WAS dismayed to see The National’s first page last Saturday. In my view, your paper descended below the depth of the gutter press insulting a very old lady while a celebration of her 70 year reign was taking place. Even though the celebration was nothing more that political brainwashing, your timing with the manners of a pigsty will not persuade people to join the campaign for independence or, indeed, increase your circulation. Probably many, many people do not believe in the continuation of the monarchy after this Queen, but that’s a question for the future and not one to be blasted out in the manner you chose to use.

Gordon Morris
via email