I WELCOME the comment by Plaid Cymru’s newest peer, Carmen Smith (Mar 31), that the SNP should consider keeping membership of the House of Lords under review to get independence “in as many rooms as we can”.

I only joined the SNP in 2016 after the EU referendum, and I have never been able to understand the party’s longstanding opposition to nominating members to serve in the upper house at Westminster. In a bicameral parliament you absolutely need representation in both chambers to make a real difference to legislation.

READ MORE: Plaid Cymru's new peer wants independence 'in as many room as possible'

Given that virtually all Westminster legislation has to go through both the Commons and the Lords, it seems nonsense to me that the SNP has a superb cohort MPs in the Commons, but no representation at all in the Lords. It’s worth remembering that huge areas of law that apply in Scotland are NOT currently devolved, and so the detail of all this legislation is determined by votes at Westminster. Moreover, because time in the the House of Commons is heavily constrained by “guillotine” resolutions presented by the government, it is only in the Lords that most legislation receives detailed scrutiny.

Many very wise amendments made by the House of Lords are in the end accepted by the Commons, but unless a party has members in the Lords to propose amendments, there is nothing that can be done.

Of course, few in Scotland would support the current undemocratic process by which peers are selected, but the approach used by Plaid Cymru in which party members get to vote for who will be nominated seems a good system. Likewise, the Green Party of England and Wales is well served in the Lords, even though it is just as opposed as the SNP to the underlying principles.

Of course, both MPs and the peers from Scotland would cease when Scotland becomes independent, but until the very last day when Scotland is still part of the UK, we need the strongest possible representation of pro-independence voices in both houses at Westminster.

Dr Gareth Morgan

THANK God it’s over. Henceforth in Scotland April 1 will be forever known as Humza’s Hate Crime day. The press, TV and radio were awash with interviews and what looked like many thousands of comments were posted on social media. Hundreds of hate crimes were allegedly reported by both sides in this so-called national, but possibly not rational, debate.

Ultra Unionists joined ultra nationalists to stand outside the empty Scottish Parliament building in the rain protesting for the right to hate each other on a regular basis. There seemed to be a bit of a shortage of politicians to defend the new legislation. There was little sign of any Green or Labour politicians who voted for it. The SNP managed to eventually muster on TV the relevant minister and oddly enough an ex-councillor. It was a great pity that neither one seemed to have read, let alone understood, the legislation and gave very differing answers to the very same questions.

READ MORE: Police Scotland taking no action on JK Rowling hate crime post

The only question I wanted answered was why, after such a long time, we suddenly needed hate crime legislation in the first place?

In the relative peace of the very late evening I broke the habit of a lifetime and had a wee dram on my own. I opened a bottle I inherited from an old friend who passed away a couple of years ago. We had hoped to open it together on Independence Day but I suspect, after today, neither of us will see that day.

Has anyone tried turning Scotland off and back on again? It may need unplugging for a short while. Maybe turn it off at the wall for a few minutes to let it cool down. If that does not work, perhaps the operating system from 2014 needs to be re-installed.

Brian Lawson

PEOPLE of Scotland, know the history of your country which has been systematically denied to you. It is the story that links the past, present and future and which will power the independence movement to victory.

From Scotland’s steadfast resistance to remain a sovereign independent nation, against centuries of English aggression, to the shady politics of the last 40 years and the disdain in which Westminster holds Scotland, the once mutual Act of Union is definitely broken.

READ MORE: Michael Gove accused of 'vilifying' Muslims in 'sickening lurch to right'

Although Westminster maintains that Scotland is hugely subsidised and a drain on the UK economy, why is it so desperate to keep Scotland and the Union in tact? Surely it can’t be out of a caring generosity, or even the English obsession to keep the post-imperial title of Great Britain. No, it is purely because of financial factors extremely favourable to London.

The so-called poverty-stricken part of North Britain that is Scotland is a rich, well-endowed region producing many economic benefits, ranging from food and drink to renewable energy including declining North Sea oil and gas, the benefits of which pour into Westminster’s Treasury every year.

Grant Frazer

I AM sure readers will have noticed that institutions and individuals are using a new formulation to try to soften the impact of their actions. They are calling them “historical”, seeking to imply they relate to events long ago and of no account now.

This is how the allegations made against Sir Jeffrey Donaldson have been described. Yet, if they are true, inevitably the actions must have occurred in his lifetime.

READ MORE: DUP leader Jeffery Donaldson quits as he's charged with historic sex offences

The Post Office, too, has begun to describe the cases in which they prosecuted and persecuted innocent subpostmasters and sub postmistresses as “of a historical nature.” Yet we know that virtually all of them occurred this century.

None of this is in any way “historical.”

Gavin Brown