I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with David Stubley's letter (November 13), particularly his final paragraphs citing self-seeking politicians prepared to lie to the population in order to retain the idea of "Empire", more exactly, "England's Empire". Armistice Day has just passed, marking two world wars that began in Europe and from which the EU was an outcome intended to prevent another. Now the much-divided UK intends to no longer subscribe to the ideals of civilised mainland Europe and go its own way.

When and if this disaster for future generations happens it would make sense to take it a stage further by declaring UK a neutral country, removing from it all foreign armaments including the American-controlled Trident and reduce our armed forces to a level suitable to our local non-global needs. After all, what have we that an enemy might so covet that they would launch a nuclear attack against us? The UK nuclear deterrent is only the price for the prize of a seat at the UN top table and no different from less developed nations wanting to be nuclear, only the prizes are different.

The savings, if redirected to within our society, would be invaluable as too might be perceived international respect. Sadly, such thinking on the part of our present leadership will never materialise. My personal dream: a politically neutral independent Scotland in a united Europe, not for me but my grandchildren. They are the ones who'll suffer because of selfish imperialist actions and lies sold to the hard of thinking.

John A Smith,

21 Anchorscross, Dunblane.

SEAN Piggott’s suggestion (Letters, November 12) that “Scottish lairds eagerly joined [the UK] to cover their colonial gambling debts centuries ago” may have been true of some Scots, but it was certainly not true of all. The Union faced significant parliamentary opposition right to the end, mirroring the feelings of the many disenfranchised Scots. In short Scotland was divided, as it is now. But more importantly the motive for Union was not philanthropy to Scotland but a desire to control Scotland.

Monarchical succession was critical, as Queen Anne was unlikely to produce a male heir, so the Act of Security passed by the Scottish Parliament became the “catalyst” for Union. This stated, as Sir Tom Devine points out, “the Scots Parliament had the right to decide on Queen Anne’s successor and that England and Scotland could not have the same monarch in the future unless the London Parliament granted the Scots free communication of trade and the liberty of the plantations”. This convinced Westminster that “Scotland could no longer be governed effectively” within a Regal Union and that a full-scale political union was essential.

And so it is now. As we leave the EU, powers, which have been exercised in Brussels, over matters which have previously been devolved, will be repatriated to Westminster, rather than to Edinburgh. This illustrates the poverty of the comparison between the UK leaving the EU, and Scotland leaving the UK. The EU is, as Mr Piggott himself observes, a “trading bloc” to which powers have been ceded so that the member states can co-operate to mutual benefit. The UK, on the other hand, is a complete political union focused on Westminster. Even the powers Scotland enjoys just now are at the grace and favour of Westminster and can be removed whenever it is determined appropriate.

Mr Piggott may consider this parochial but is it not ironic that the alternatives he berates – Brexit from the EU, and Scottish independence from the UK – are issues which cannot be escaped any time soon by the Scottish electorate? Mr Piggott says he is a “life-long anti-imperialist” with “nothing but contempt for Mr Farage’s cause”, and who “hates the Tories so much I would rather lose a thousand elections to the enemies of the working class than run away from them with my tail between my legs”, and I sincerely applaud his commitment to his cause. However, politics, as Otto von Bismarck once observed, “is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”. Mr Piggott’s dedication is admirable, but if he loses a thousand elections, he has achieved little other than losing a lot of elections.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

IT has taken me some time to work through the mish-mash from Sean Pigott.

He denies he characterises Scotland as "too wee, too poor and too stupid", and in the next sentence says the Letters to the Herald are a wee bit parochial, meaning they relate to Scotland.

He states that we voluntarily joined a trading bloc; in fact the UK was desperate to join, but entry was blocked by the French Premier, General Charles de Gaulle, who christened the UK as "the sick man of Europe". After he was gone, Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath took us into the bloc, averring that fishing "was expendable".

When Labour came to power in 1974, it had a referendum in its manifesto; Harold Wilson framed the question as "Do you want to stay in the EEC" as I think it was called then. The SNP campaigned with the slogan "Not on anybody else's terms" – I remember it well as I was involved, and Scotland voted to remain.

Mr Pigott's attempts to equate this to the Union of Parliaments is specious. That treaty was signed by the nobility of Scotland who were bribed and threatened; the signing took place in a cellar, not subjected to public gaze. The ordinary people rioted in the streets but did not have a vote; England had "cotched Scotland and would not let her go". Any benefits from the slave trade were accrued to the landed classes, and did not trickle down – having squandered "their" estates they made fortunes.

His attempt to compare Nicola Sturgeon with Nigel Farage is grossly insulting to Ms Sturgeon.

He wrote "Scottish independence is driven by demoralised social democrats who have given up on solidarity and just want to run away from the Tories". I have been a member of the SNP since 1966, never felt demoralised – quite the opposite these days, and the enemy was the Labour Party.

Describing himself as a life-long anti-imperialist and a life-long socialist he wrote that he hates the Tories so much he would rather lose a thousand elections than run away from them with his tail between his legs. If we had two elections per year then this would mean 500 years, well Methuselah made 969. (He likes hyperbole.)

I cannot recall seeing a dog running with its tail between its legs, but as I am now 84, perhaps I have just forgotten.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.