Letters: May can solve her Brexit dilemma by looking to Thatcher

The contradictory opposites and dilemmas in this scenario are not reconcilable. If Theresa May were not dependent on the bribed DUP, if she had not blown her majority in order to dish English Labour to gain party preference (another Tory faux pas in line with Cameron’s), what could she have done?

For a start, the DUP would have been ignored totally. Would she have put pressure on the Northern Irish parties to settle differences and share power again at Stormont? Or thrown troublesome Northern Ireland into the political wilderness? After all, surveys have indicated her party members have a complete disregard for the union with Northern Ireland and indeed Scotland.

At the moment, Theresa May has one simple unexplored scenario which would solve her parliamentary problems in an instant.

The Brexit debacle has highlighted that Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain. Theresa May really should begin to act as leader of the English Tory Party, in line with her idol Margaret Thatcher, who once declared she was an English nationalist. If Theresa May were to go about dissolving the incorporating Union, which most of her party members do not really support now, she would be rid of the Scots and Northern Irish. The English Tories does not need its branch in Scotland. By removing Scots and Northern Irish MPs from Westminster, that would bolster and cement the English Tory position. Let one be honest, it is an English party deep down and it could be true to its roots.

After all, when the Irish problem became a problem for the English legislature post-1916, namely Westminster, it was content to give up a bit of the Union and partition Ireland. All it needs to do now is cut loose from the remaining partitioned section and let the Irish come to a modus operandi between themselves. The same for the Scots. Cut them loose. The bulk of their MPs are agin us.

The English could take back control for themselves. After all, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour is a fundamentally English party too; it does not need its diminished Scottish branch either. And Jeremy Corbyn is deep down a Leaver.

The upshot would be democracy all round. The EU referendum showed that the constituent nations in the UK state voted in different ways.

Or to put it another way, how would the English have reacted if the EU vote had turned out remain and the English had voted to leave and the largest part of the UK state was denied its entitlement to get its own way? There is no need to suggest an answer! We can guess with certainty what that would be!

The backstop is not an issue for Brexiteers. English Tory arch-Brexiteer Steve Baker maintains that they will vote against May’s proposal as it limits taking back ultimate control after the transitional phase. Empire2 desires are really at the heart of the issue, aka English entitlement again!

The Precious Union is withering away. Let it go!
John Edgar
Kilmaurs

THE time to make important choices is fast approaching.

As things stand we are soon going to be out of the EU, quite possibly out of the single market and the/a customs union, and left scratching our heads as to how we deal with the inevitable serious economic effects of the situation foisted on us by the Brenglish* Conservative government in Westminster. To my mind, this choice boils down to weighing up the relative merits of the two unions.

Firstly the EU, in respect of which it can be said that at worst there is not much concern shown for Scotland and its situation, while at best there is a great deal of respect and support, the evidence of which is clearly visible throughout the country in the shape of the many EU-supported projects from which we all benefit.

Then there is the union within these isles in which we are supposed to be valued and equal partners. Here I would suggest that at best there is no great concern ever shown by the Brenglish government (or opposition) for Scotland and its situation, while at worst there is any amount of historical and recent evidence to suggest that the same Westminster establishment is actively and consciously working against our interests as they seek to secure what material advantage they can gain for themselves from the assets to be diverted from Scotland, in order to keep post-Brexit Brengland* afloat. We should also bear in mind that the default mode south of the Border, the position which the electorate there will always adopt or return to sooner or even sooner, is to (re-)elect a Conservative and Unionist government.

Another choice is our degree of support for a “People’s Vote” on Brexit. Here we have to decide between trying to save England from itself by promoting, and helping win, a vote which will hamstring or even prevent Brexit – thus potentially hampering our short-term chances of independence at the same time – or sitting on our hands and using the shambles of post-Brexit Brengland as the springboard from which to secure that independence forthwith, and with it the right to choose our place in Europe and the wider world for ourselves. The dilemma here lies in identifying which is the first prize and which the consolation. Let’s hope we choose wisely. Saor Alba – either way?

*Brenglish/Brengland - starting out as British/Britain, but always ending up de facto as English/England.
Ian Duff
Inverness

I STRONGLY disagree with Ian Greenhaigh and LJ McDowell (Poppy has become a recruitment tool for the armed forces, November 9). I wear my red poppy proudly to remember the men and women serving in armed forces or by virtue of living in occupied territory died and/or suffered terrible injuries in the wars we’ve been involved in since 1914.

In doing so I am not glorifying war nor succumbing to jingoism. My father was French and I have Dutch relatives who lived under German occupation and suffered routine cruelty at the hands of German forces. An uncle, who was with the 51st Highland Division taken prisoner at St Valery, was held a prisoner of war in Poland for the duration of the war. A friend of his, whose biography I wrote many years later, told me of the two great benefits of winning the Second World War: he was no longer covered in lice and wasn’t starving. As a tall 19 year old when he was taken prisoner, he weighed 6st 10lb on his liberation. A Dutch relative was taken prisoner by the Japanese and she and her two sons suffered the kind of merciless treatment at the hands of her guards that they never really recovered from it. I wear my red poppy proudly to show my respect for their courage and endurance in surviving such cruelty.

I was very much against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but didn’t feel that I knew enough about the Bosnian war to criticise our role in it. My brother served in all these wars, as did many of my former pupils. The things they saw, the actions they were involved in, the deaths and maiming of their friends, has scarred their lives forever. I wear my red poppy to remember their courage, too.

And yes, I know that the redrafting of borders post First World War and the reparations demanded of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles may well have led to the Second World War and the current wars. But I would ask Messrs Greenhaigh and McDowall if, instead of confronting Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, whether they would prefer to have lived in a world ruled by them. I wouldn’t and am grateful that, thanks to the courage of ordinary men and women, I don’t have to.

Yes, in an ideal world there would be no need for armed forces, but the world is far from ideal now, never has been and, I suspect, never will be. Armed forces will be sent out to fight in unjust as well as justified wars (see Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito).

So I wear a red poppy to remember the courage and, yes, sacrifice, of my fellow men and women. Always will.
Lovina Roe
Perth

UNFORTUNATELY, your article on the Planning Bill, “Outcry after Holyrood votes against giving Scots public the right to appeal planning decisions” (November 8), only provides one viewpoint on what is a complicated issue. As the professional body for planners the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland has welcomed the decision of the parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee to resist calls for introducing third party rights of appeal on planning decisions.

The Planning Bill is a great opportunity to put communities at the heart of deciding how places change. We believe the way to do this is through supporting people to engage early and meaningfully in plans and decision-making.

The proposals considered by the committee would have entrenched confrontation when we need collaboration between everyone with an interest in our built and natural environment. They would have led to more local decisions being made by central government at a time when we want to give communities more say over the places where they live. And they would have allowed competing commercial interests to frustrate development and potentially pit one part of a community against another.

The proposals would also have put immense strain on planning departments who are already under severe resourcing pressures.

When the Bill moves to stage three, we want to see further amendments to make sure that the tools and resources are in place to support proactive and positive public involvement in planning.
Fraser Carlin
Convenor, Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland

I NOTE the disingenuous comments of local government, housing and planning minister Kevin Stewart that “planners are trained to be objective, using rational judgement and evidence to inform decisions about development and use of land that are in the long-term public interest” (November 8).

The “planner’s judgement”, supported by democratic decisions of planning authorities, is frequently appealed by the developers who have that special privilege of being able to do so. The minister often supports them and overturns the recommendations of their own professional advisers, the Reporters.

All the minister need do is cite the mantra “It is in the national interest”. No justification. No explanation. No questioning in parliament.

Just why does a “big shed” to house a film studio have to be located on food-producing land in the green belt? Is that “in the national interest”? What about food security? Why is the location of a tennis academy a few miles from the Scottish National Tennis Centre in Stirling University deemed to be “in the national interest”?

Double standards through and through, and communities lose out.
Willie Oswald
Blanefield