IF history has taught us anything, it’s taught us that a country’s journey to independence is more often than not a very long and difficult road to travel, with many setbacks along the way. Of course we expect those trying to deny us our right to self determination to throw as many obstacles as they can in our path, but our ability to get round those obstacles is often hindered by dissenting voices coming from our own back seat.

These voices from our own family can often be the most damaging and hurtful, they wear away your confidence, your morale and quite often they can be personal in nature often eroding your desire to carry on the journey. It takes a fair degree of resolve and determination to overcome those critical voices, which I believe in some cases are very deliberately aimed at causing division and undermining the independence movement.

It’s often said that a bad friend is worse than an enemy, they gnaw away at your confidence, they try to destroy your self esteem, they undermine your objectives and when they feel emboldened enough they will also indulge in personal attacks. I think we are seeing a number of these bad friends in the independence movement at the moment. Their demonising rhetoric of many in the independence movement often results in many supporters being scared to raise their heads above the parapet in protest, for fear of it getting blown away and others in fear of the bully, standing behind him or her, empowering them even more.

I’m not going to repeat here the disgusting and unwarranted attacks of a personal nature aimed at Nicola Sturgeon and other elected SNP MPs and MSPs we’ve all seen them, many from those claiming to be supporters of Scottish independence. Constructive well thought-out criticism delivered with respect to the intended recipient can be extremely beneficial, but it should never be in the form of a personal attack. I would also ask that our leading independence journalists and bloggers be more aware of the power of their rhetoric and the different effect it can have on the opponents and supporters of Scottish independence: it has the ability to empower one side and demoralise the other side.

Please when you write your articles and letters take some time to think about the effect it will have on the independence movement before you press the send button.

Iain MacEchern
Crieff

WHEN I look at the present Westminster Power grab attempt and the Scottish Government response I wonder if there is not a better approach the Scottish Government could take.

The Westminster case, as I understand it, is that the UK needs a standardised market approach right across the UK to ensure a level playing field in an open market. Well that is a reasonable point which has validity. Right now, we have this in the EU single market.

Now the people in England and Wales voted to leave the EU, there was no vote on leaving the single market, the people in Northern Ireland and in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and therefore in the single market.

Now the Westminster Government decided that leaving the EU meant also leaving the single market and they tried to apply that to all parts of the UK, whatever the people had voted for. They were unable to apply this to Northern Ireland because of international agreements they had entered into with Ireland and the EU and have been forced to accept that there will be an open border in Ireland and that Northern Ireland will “align” with the EU single market in order to allow this to happen.

Now, of course Boris Johnson denies that this is so, but we now know that there will be a border in the Irish Sea which will enable Northern Ireland to have an open border with the EU. It is also obvious that Northern Ireland will need to retain the powers being returned from the EU in order to continue to align with the single market.

So it is possible for the UK to agree with the EU to allow one part of the UK to remain in the EU single market and to remain aligned with it in future.

This being the case Scotland must also be allowed to remain in the single market, and needs to have the powers which are coming back from the EU sent to Edinburgh in order to maintain this alignment in the future.

Westminster can’t argue against the impossibility of Scotland staying in the single market if it has agreed that Northern Ireland can do this and the Scottish Government have a clear mandate from the Scottish people to demand the right to stay in the EU single market and avoid much of the disaster of a Brexit no deal and the Westminster power grab.

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats

WHERE are the voices? This week, depending on where you get your news, we learned that Julian Assange turned 50, his partner and mother to his children, Stella Moris, stated that she will marry him whilst locked up in the maximum high security Belmarsh prison where he has been incarcerated for two years and counting.

Seven years prior to that he was holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy, London.

The persecution of Assange from primarily the UK and US Governments is truly sickening - Sir Keir Starmer has played a role as well. Assange is being punished for being a journalist, albeit one who made the grave error in exposing US/UK war crimes.

The big news story, however, was that the key witness in the prosecution case against Assange has now stated that his statement was fabricated. This elicited the response, “end of case against Julian Assange” from Edward Snowdon, responded to by Glenn Greenwald with “It should be”.

However, we learn on July 7 that the US has been granted an appeal to extradite Assange. These were important news stories, worthy of any newspaper front page or bulletin item on broadcast TV, yet you are forgiven if you missed it as there was a MSM blackout.

Much has been written about anti-independence news coverage, pro-Unionist, lack of impartiality and journalistic integrity – we cry out for fairer news coverage. I subscribe to this paper as I see the importance of an alternative narrative to the independence debate but is it not hypocritical that there is no editorial championing of Assange?

Why hasn’t there been supporting columns written by Riddoch, Fry, Pratt, Craven et al? Where are the media voices? Where are the political voices? Do the SNP and Greens have a voice on this?

The silence is deafening and the assault on Assange is a threat to us all if we believe in freedom of speech, independence and democracy.

JC
Fife

THE renewed publicity on the benefits of a Northern Ireland/Scotland bridge link, provided by a recent examination of the issue by American broadcasters CNN, has not been given a fair hearing by the wider YES movement. The plans by Professor Alan Dunlop deserve reconsideration by both the Scottish and Irish Governments, and the pro-independence lobby, for three fundamental reasons.

Firstly, we should really beware of disregarding the message because we dislike the messenger. And it is beyond doubt that Boris Johnson is trying to politicise the concept of a NI/Scotland bridge link to play to the lowest common denominator of political unionism in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

However, Prior to Professor Dunlop’s plans being published by the National in January 2018 the former SNP Leader and Director of Options for Scotland, Gordon Wilson, published in August 2016 the Blueprint For A Celtic Corridor, which outlined in detail the economic advantages of Scotland and Northern Ireland both being in the single market, whilst being outwith the geopolitical clutches of the EU, but still able to trade effectively with the Republic of Ireland.

The ambition of a bridge link did not become public until after the passing of Gordon Wilson, but Gordon always predicated his belief in independence on proving its economic benefits to ordinary Scots and it was he who first made in my view the intellectual case for a NI/Scotland bridge link.

The Oresund Committee figures on the Oresund Bridge between Denmark and Sweden have proven that both countries have benefited by 8.41 Billion Euros due to the economic benefits of the bridge. Given the strong importance the tourism, fishing, and agricultural sectors of the economy disproportionately has for Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, a bridge or rail link between the three jurisdictions could be transformative for all.

A re-unified Ireland alongside an independent Scotland gaining new trade and jobs through a physical link will surely name that bridge the Freedom Bridge not the Union Bridge, and I sincerely hope that visionary elements in the Irish Government and Northern Ireland Executive prevail, and that Argyll and Bute MSP, Jenni Minto, can persuade the Scottish Government of its merits.

Cllr Andy Doig
Scotia Future

THE political question and analysis by both Selma Rahman and Dougie Harrison on reluctance of SNP to release the reins and their control on independence it is nothing new same problem existed in 2013.

If we had been reliant on the SNP leadership controlling the narrative as they wanted to, on independence, then the 28% vote for independence would have remained the same in 2014.

Groups such as Trade Unions for Independence and importantly many others, were developed to politicise the Scottish people on the importance of Independence re-registering voters, because of that hard work we had the highest voter turnout in a UK election, the SNP unfortunately do not understand or accept the political maturity of the Scottish working class, is the FM getting this political advice from Lesley Evans.

If we are going to win independence we are not going to be achieve Independence it by trying to convince the30% plus NO voters to vote YES we have to provide the Scottish people with a vision of Scotland on the Economy , Currency and Pensions, we must object to, as most of SNP members do Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission, that is why the SNP leadership will not allow a conference debate on it.

We need to bring together groups and build up a broad democratic alliances for Independence, Scottish Constitution, Economy and Common Weal, we have people with a wealth of knowledge within our ranks. The SNP must use that knowledge, if they do, it will mean the leadership will lose the control established by Andrew Wilson and Kevin Pringle, in the interest of independence.

Rab Amos
Trade Unions for Independence

IN thanks to WJ Graham for his thoughts about secular campaigning in Scotland, (Letters, Jul 6) I should clarify some of his misunderstandings.

Mr Graham proudly boasts small religious modernisations including the acceptance of marriage equality by a few churches. We too rejoice that, at least in this country, churches no longer burn witches but Scottish people are unlikely to award them a medal for these concessions to the 21st century.

Faith leaders are absolutely entitled to make representations to government but religiosity makes their views no more or less important than any other social subgroups and they certainly should not have privileged and unelected positions with direct access to politicians and councillors.

Gardening clubs have political views too but they don’t have seats in The House of Lords.

Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society