IT is depressing to see views of Scottish exceptionalism aired in the letters pages of The National. In particular, criticism of Prof Curtice’s analysis of polls showing concern about immigration at 42% in Scotland, as opposed to 52% UK-wide. The point being missed here is that the 42% is 14 percentage points higher than last year. That’s a 50% increase in a year, to a level that is not far off the number who voted Yes.

Writing these findings off as misleading is dangerous. We need to be mindful of our own sectarian history, itself rooted in an anti-immigration campaign rooted in very similar socio-economic circumstances.

READ MORE: John Curtice gives verdict on why far-right riots hit England but not Scotland

It isn’t difficult to imagine certain sections of our community being attracted by the waving of Union flags and calls for a more nativist state. The foundations can be seen in Glasgow on many Saturday afternoons, in the triumphalist parading on July 12, and in the counter demonstrations that accompany independence events. The fact it has been suggested that the rioting in Belfast has paramilitary undertones should provide us with a clear warning signal.

A relatively small change in far-right strategy such as swapping their St George plus Union flags for St Andrew plus Union could easily gather enough support to cause significant disruption here.

Anyone in Scotland who claims they don’t know someone with explicit racist views of one sort or another has either been leading a very sheltered life or does not recognise racism when they hear it. Even relatively moderate racism is quite easily mobilised by targeted use of disinformation. These lies don’t even have to be particularly believable when the recipient is already conditioned by the continual drip-feed of subliminal extremism from politicians, amplified by the media.

There is absolutely no excuse for smug complacency. All the components are there. They only need to be put together, and the far-right is adept at their assembly.

Cameron Crawford
Rothesay

IT seems to me that if the social media companies won’t regulate themselves, then they need to be heavily regulated, particularly X (formerly Twitter). The only thing the likes of Elon Musk understands is money, so why don’t we all junk it from our phones? The government should be like the Chinese . Any sign of trouble and X and all other mediums get shut down for a week! Only when they’re losing money, subscribers and influence will they do something about it!

Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen

DISINFORMATION seems to be the word of the moment. As if we didn’t have mobs and rioting in days gone by, long before the advent of mass literacy, never mind the internet.

The word itself seems to dilute the real intended meaning – lying. Why not just call it lies? If the internet was taken away from us (as the British state would love), we would still be left with lying media – the Daily Mail, Telegraph etc – not to mention the various government outlets which lie to us consistently and have done for years.

READ MORE: Inside Scotland’s disturbing far-right groups since English riots

Online platforms spread the truth, and valid views as well as propaganda and lies, so be careful in your demands that the internet be censored. It plays right into the hands of an establishment that has been angling for this very outcome for years.

Wouldn’t they just love it if our only access to information was the BBC and the right-wing rags? Think about it.

Jim Butchart
via email

WHILE I agree with much that Alex Beckett writes (Letters, Aug 9), I believe that his implicit denigration of Humza Yousaf is not justified. He is the only First Minister to have successfully stood up to Westminster.

Soon after his appointment he defied the ban on setting up safe drug injecting rooms by going ahead with a pilot under the devolved remit of health, much to the fury of Alister Jack. Not long after, he defied Westminster again on the rules that James Cleverly tried to impose on any meetings Humza might have with foreign dignitaries, by meeting President Erdogan a second time.

READ MORE: Elon Musk and Humza Yousaf clash over 'race baiting' on Twitter

I also believe that he deserves respect for the manner of his resignation. He realised that the Greens believed that they were indispensable and expected him to sit with bated breath, waiting for them to decide if they would condescend to continue their support, and he shocked them by deciding not to be thus beholden. Then Ash Regan tried the same trick, in the belief that her vote, with her demands attached, was essential in the confidence vote. Resignation, therefore, in my opinion, was the regrettable but honourable decision.

Right now, the present SNP government could do well to take a similar stand on the Deposit Return Scheme. They should notify all those businesses that prepared for the scheme that they are welcome to make their own decision on implementing it, without fear of legal action. After all, in the past many companies such as AG Barr and others who supplied their product in glass bottles operated just such a scheme without requiring legislation. Moreover, the very Tories who blocked the bill had, before 2019, promised to introduce exactly the same kind of scheme before the end of the parliamentary term just past. Such action from Holyrood would restore some credibility as well as saving the need for compensation.

To my mind, Humza has shown the way forward and it is now time for our government to follow his lead and stand up to Westminster. The people of Scotland are sovereign, as already accepted by the Supreme Court. The time to accept Westminster diktat is over.

P Davidson
Falkirk