THE sight of Ruth Davidson calling Orwell to her side to berate and discredit the SNP is replete with irony (“Davidson hits at SNP over ‘Orwellian nationalism’”, The Herald, May 16). Yes, he loathed nationalism but his essay on the subject is very subtle about the names political movements give to themselves, and the sentiments that others (usually their opponents) imbue them with. If contemporary Scottish nationalism resembled “Celtic nationalism” as Orwell characterised it in 1945 Ms Davidson’s charges might stick, but it doesn't, so they don't.

Movements mutate and evolve, for good or ill, and Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP is not premised on Anglophobia. Culturally, “competitive prestige” between English and Scots has cheerfully endured despite the political Union but never – except in Ruth Davidson’s contrived fantasies – has it translated into the “power hunger” that for Orwell, defined the brutal nationalisms that had just torn Europe apart.

Orwell unerringly stood for political decency, whatever it was called. As a good internationalist, he fought on the Republican side to defend a democratically won conception of Spanish nationhood, and supported Indian independence from Empire, whose familiar servant he had once been. He did not, it is true, have much feel for Scotland, and didn’t think it could flourish without “British protection”, but whether in changed times he would have changed his mind, is a moot point, and not binding on anyone now.

Ms Davidson omits to tell us that one of the unpleasant nationalist forms which Orwell consistently called out was British Toryism. “A British Tory”, he said, “will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no sense of inconsistency”. Substitute “Scotland” for “India” and this fits Ms Davidson to a T. For a proud patriotic Scot who intelligently opposed Brexit to have aligned herself with the virulent strain of English nationalism to which the Ukip-ised Tories now give expression is power hunger (and “doublethink”) at its most naked.

There are decent Tory Remainers and Ms Davidson could – and should, given the electoral outcome here - have chosen to be one. If she wants to take lessons from Orwell – whom few have bettered at sniffing out incipient fascism – she should be attending carefully to the vacuous slogans, shameless deceptions, and fierce anti-Europeanism with which her own party is now poisoning political life.

Mike Nellis,

Emeritus Professor of Criminal and Community Justice,

University of Strathclyde School of Law,

Lord Hope Building, Glasgow.

RUTH Davidson's speech to the Orwell Foundation was appalling on so many levels. The 2014 referendum on Scottish self-determination was held up by all impartial British and international observers as a model of civic nationalism. Her re-interpretation of that cannot go unchallenged. Her diatribe to the foundation was a farrago of nonsense and of historical and literary misrepresentation.

Kay Cameron,

2/1, 10 Castlebank Drive, Partick, Glasgow.

RUTH Davidson flings out accusations against the SNP which are without either foundation or justification, and her ridiculous assertion that people feel bullied and hectored into voting SNP is beyond the pale. Ms Davidson ignores the fact that it isn't Scottish nationalism that is taking Scotland out of the EU and over the hard Brexit cliff, and Scottish nationalism didn't devise the infamous bedroom tax or the rape clause.

Ms Davidson's claim that after 10 years of SNP government "people have had enough" is neither borne out by the opinion polls nor by the council election results earlier this month when the SNP emerged the winners with 431 seats while Ms Davidson's Tories came second with 276 seats, which may go some way to explaining why after threatening to charge people for their medicine if she got into power at Holyrood, Ms Davidson has suddenly become a convert to the SNP's policy of free medical prescriptions, admitting that they are popular with the public. That is something that certainly can't be said about the divisive and austerity-laden policies of Ms Davidson's Conservative Party.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

"NATIONALISM and patriotism are very different”, says Ruth Davidson. Divisive nationalism can be summed up in five words: "Red, White and Blue Brexit".

John Jamieson,

37 Echline Place, South Queensferry.

THE Tories are making us all live in a "Looking Glass" world.

First we have Ruth Davidson claiming that Scotland does not attract its fair share of immigrants. This in an interview with Emma Barnett on BBC 5 Live on May 12, just one week after two taxis had picked up the Zielsdorf family from Laggan at 6am In the morning for deportation - a sight surely to make all decent Highlanders shudder. This was a family who had run the local shop and cafe for two years, contributing hugely to the local economy as the shop had previously been empty for a year and a half. They were also liked and respected locally.

Now, we have Theresa May announcing that "the Conservative Party has always been the true party of the workers" (“Parties go for workers’ vote as May offers raft of rights”, The Herald, May 15).

Where are the Mad Hatter and the White Rabbit?

Susan Grant,

Mansfield Cottage, Scotsburn Road, Tain.

AS we near the end of the beginning of the General Election campaign, it is clear that Theresa May has no intention of dispensing with her Churchillian rhetoric. Every time we see her on TV she reminds us just how much the country needs strong and stable leadership and a strong and stable government. The only person with the strength and stability to deliver both of these and a strong and stable economy is, of course, Mrs May.

As for policies, well the Tories have nothing much to speak of really but when you are as strong and stable as our erstwhile Prime Minister, who needs them? With regard to Brexit, it seems neither Mrs May nor her acolytes have much of a clue far less a strategy, but as long as she and her negotiators show how strong and stable they are none of that really matters, apparently.

Of course, being so strong and stable means being able to take tough decisions (for other people, that is). The poor, the disadvantaged and the unemployed rarely know what's best for them and need a strong and stable (Tory, naturally) government to point them in the right direction. If this means more years of austerity, benefit caps, less money and resources for disabled people, increased dependence on foodbanks, more zero hour contracts, who are we to argue? The priority in a strong and stable country with a strong and stable Prime Minister is to ensure that the financial portfolios of our wealthiest citizens remain as strong and stable as possible. (last year the UK's 1,000 richest people increased their wealth by 14 per cent).

Last but not least, we must always remember that a strong and stable leader never admits to being wrong, never apologises when she is and above all, never engages in democratic debate. That is what it means to be strong and stable.

Alan Woodcock,

23 Osborne Place, Dundee.

THERE'S little doubt that when the SNP election manifesto eventually appears, it will reiterate Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for another independence referendum before the end of spring 2019.

If Ms Sturgeon persists in perusing a rerun of the 2014 referendum and therefore – self-evidently – intends to make Scotland an independent country, can we be confident she will provide some detail of what that country might look like? Details on trading relationships, currency, the deficit, establishing a central bank independent of the Bank of England, how our public services will function without the Barnett Formula in post-oil boom Scotland and so on.

Or perhaps not? Ms Sturgeon may claim she's hasn't had time. But the SNP has been a single issue party for more than 80 years – a UK break-up is its raison d'etre and it's spent the last 10 years in power focused on it.

The SNP shouldn't be further agitating for a second independence referendum in its manifesto unless it can provide us with at least a decent outline, in tactical and financial terms, of what an independent Scotland will look like in the early years, and how we'll get there.

Martin Redfern,

Merchiston Gardens, Edinburgh.

THE SNP tells us “it is democratically unacceptable for Scotland to be dragged out of the EU” and therefore it has a mandate for a second independence referendum. However, in the recent two referenda, more than two million Scots voted to stay in the UK but only 1.6m voted to remain in the EU.

It seems considerably more Scots want to stay in the UK than in the EU.

Angus Macmillan,

Meikle Boturich , near Balloch, Dunbartonshire.