THERE need be no tension between ethics and pragmatism in relation to the Catalan referendum (“SNP faces diplomatic crisis over stance on Catalan vote”, The Herald, July 8). The behaviour of the Spanish Government has been appalling. Elected political leaders have been fined and barred from office for previously having held an advisory referendum and the Spanish state has insisted that under no circumstances can any of the national groups in Spain ever have the right to choose self-determination. The threats being made in relation to the coming referendum include imprisonment and even the hint of military intervention. The shadow of Franco clearly still lingers and there is no way that not just independence supporters but all concerned with civil rights can justify being neutral about the Catalans' right to choose democratically and non-violently.

The Spanish Government's aim is to isolate those seeking Catalan independence and its recent suggestion that it would not block Scottish EU membership has to be seen in that context. When it comes to a decision about an independent Scotland and the EU, the Spanish state will do what is economically and politically useful for it at the time. Any current statements have no binding significance and the idea that we should base our international stance on avoiding any offence to other governments is not only wrong but is not the way the Scottish Government has behaved. The First Minister has not hesitated in attacking the US President, so why not the Spanish Prime Minister?

If the Catalans vote Yes and proceed to declaring independence, this will be a great boost to independence supporters in Scotland. They have a right to self-determination if they choose it: we have both an ethical and a pragmatic interest in supporting them.

Isobel Lindsay,

9 Knocklea Place, Biggar.

THERE has been some speculation that the referendum on October 1 in Catalonia will pose a problem for those in Scotland seeking independence, including the SNP Government. I am certain the SNP would recognise both the right of self-determination of Catalans and the outcome of any legitimate plebiscite. It can do no other. The refusal of the Westminster Government to contemplate a Scottish independence referendum (with 56 out of 59 MPs and a majority in the Scottish Parliament) and Ruth Davidson insisting that even half the votes of the electorate would not constitute a mandate, then the SNP might find itself in exactly the same constitutional dilemma as the Catalans, and having to utilise the same resolution.

In any case the referendum by the Kurdish people (September 25) in Iraq will prove more difficult for the countries of the West to solve, than either Scottish or Catalan sovereignty.

A war to subjugate the Kurds, involving Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran might be on the horizon, yet there is little comment in the media about this.

What will the UK/United States/European Union do about it?

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

PETER Russell states (June 10) that the 2016 EU referendum was "not about Scotland" and that "while a majority of Scottish voters rejected the proposition [to leave] the same can be said of London and various parts of the UK". Let me pass over all the obvious points about Scotland's past as an independent country with the accompanying national and civic institutions, the establishment of the Scottish Office in Victorian times with a Scottish Secretary in the Cabinet leading to the devolved arrangements we have today.

Instead, and more immediately, we should recall that we have a Scottish Parliament whose founding document, the Scotland Act 1998, states that any measure passed by the parliament which is incompatible with EU law is not law. One might also say that the referendum was not about Northern Ireland but the specific consequences for that part of the UK are undeniable. Because Scotland voted to remain, a decision subsequently endorsed by the Scottish Parliament and Government, the matter of Westminster legislating for Scotland in devolved areas inevitably raises a constitutional and political issue that does not arise for any London borough, for example. That is only the most formal aspect of the current political circumstances for Scotland in particular. Mr Russell's argument only stands on the assumption of one, unitary political system which, to put it no higher, is a counter-factual proposition.

The mistake was to call the referendum in the first place, with its incalculable consequences, political, constitutional and economic. It was called solely to hold the Conservative Party together and the result depended on large and conscious deceits. What a way to run a country.

Sincerely,

Councillor Alasdair Rankin (SNP),

City Chambers, 253 High Street, Edinburgh.

THE banner headline on the Letters Pages, “Scots’ many freedoms include the right to refuse independence”, (The Herald, July 10) concealed a major contradiction. Scotland is anything but free.

We should have realised it by now, but the pouring of money into Scotland from the post-war years onwards by successive Westminster governments has been nothing more than a trap, to imprison us into the Union. The example that provides the best illustration is the profligate accumulated £160bn of debt left by Labour in 2010, with our £15bn “share” being referred to as our deficit. No Scottish Government would have borrowed to that extent. What we are able to do is predicated upon what England does, and that remains the case even with the so-called transfer of limited tax powers to Holyrood, with the Barnett formula still based upon England’s bidding.

The problem correspondents such as Peter Russell and Keith Howell is they never bother to explain why, with the alleged benefits of the Union, Scotland has overwhelmingly voted SNP than for any other party.

Are they on the side of the English MPs who never miss the opportunity to ask at Scottish Questions in the House of Commons: “For how much longer are English taxpayers going to subsidise these Jocks?”

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

IN response to William Durward (Letters, July 10): is it not an "overwhelming minority" who win every election/referendum? Surely only those who bother to vote should be considered, and not those who don't care either way, who have possibly moved house, or who are sadly deceased but still on the voters' roll.

Ian Baillie,

1 Tudhope Crescent,

Alexandria.