KIRSTY Hughes’s comment that, “If Scotland were to choose independence through a constitutionally and legally valid process, then it would be eligible to apply to join the EU,” raises a number of issues (How has the case for independence in Europe been affected by the coronavirus crisis? The National, May 23).

First, is there a single nation member of the EU that has not torn its independence from the bosom of an oppressor, not suffered the struggle for self determination denied it by an external power imposing its will on it and forcing the necessary political action to achieve independence?

So, how is Scotland’s current struggle any different? Wouldn’t refusing to acknowledge Scotland’s legitimate and fundamental right to self-determination be to deny the very democratic standard the EU prides itself on as a founding principle?

READ MORE: How has the case for independence in Europe been affected by coronavirus?

Second, how would Scotland, which is internationally recognised as a nation in its own right – albeit currently in a “partnership” with other nations to form the United Kingdom, voting in its democratically elected Parliament – in an internationally recognised democratic election process, not have the fundamental right to enact the democratic wishes of the electorate should it declare its desire by majority for independence?

Do we Scots, alone in the global world, really have no democratic right to determine how we organise our political, economic and social affairs in our interest? Independence democratically expressed, how could international political legitimacy possibly not be a matter of formality, and therefore validate Scotland’s right to seek political and economic alliances where it wishes?

Third, we Scots are currently afflicted by a “leadership” complying with the Union by deferring the question of independence to the back burner, under the ludicrous premise that Covid-19 considerations are of paramount importance and our political government is incapable or unwilling to engage with the argument for Scotland’s independence – somehow, the general public are incapable of assimilating the argument in the current crisis.

Yet, this crisis has not been a barrier to England driving its independence from the EU. Negotiations are still going on in the background, deferral of the issue being inconceivable during the crisis, no extension to the end of transition period date countenanced. So, why should we accept Scotland’s independence being kicked into the long grass while Brexit is progressing full steam ahead?

Isn’t Kirsty Hughes’s plea for yet more delay; and at a time when we’ve never had a better opportunity to illustrate the difference in outlook between Scots and the Westminster mantra, and demonstrate how much better off we would be politically, economically and socially with Scotland being independent?

Aren’t we missing the boat?

Jim Taylor
Edinburgh

IS the termination of virtual participation in the work of the House of Commons and the demand that all MPs must return now to Westminster in person perhaps an intentional challenge to the authority of the three devolved governments which have decided to follow a different path out of lockdown? Is it, in other words, a deliberate assertion of the superior authority of the so-called UK Parliament?

Would the representatives of the three devolved nations not be within their rights to uphold the decisions of their own governments by staying within their own borders and demanding the opportunity still to play a full part in parliamentary business by video link?

How can they criticise those from England who have broken lockdown rules already by travelling to Scotland and elsewhere, if they now break the current rules themselves? Do these MPs from outwith England feel happy about the risk of taking the virus back to their communities when they next return to their constituencies?

I believe that making such a stand would be perfectly legitimate and would highlight the fact that Westminster is in fact not a pan-UK institution but, without the consent of the three other partners, is merely a dictatorial English one. What price devolution?

L McGregor
Falkirk

YOUR report on BBC Bitesize was disingenuous in the extreme as National readers should know only too well that pupils in Scotland have had their own dedicated learning output provided on the BBC Scotland channel in addition to our Network output. Those daily programmes were introduced a week into lockdown, are specifically produced to cater for the Scottish curriculum and will continue this week as they have for the last eight weeks. To bury that explanation at the end of your story does your readers a disservice and is also a slight on the hard working BBC Scotland learning staff whose efforts have been widely praised by parents, teachers and indeed the Education Secretary, John Swinney.

Hayley Valentine
BBC Scotland