SADLY, it seems that those who want Scotland to be a republic could not resist the chance to try and spoil respectful condolences for the late Queen.

The truth is, however, that these folk are very few in number and this was reinforced by the massive crowds who turned out to say farewell as the royal hearse travelled down through Scotland.

These crowds absolutely dwarfed anything that the nationalists could muster in their long-running campaign for independence even at the height of its popularity. The message seems clear enough: leave well alone.

King Charles III is steeped in Scottishness himself, from his education at Gordonstoun through to his accession speech and at all points in between. Why can’t some politicians see the reality that the Union is still strong and will continue to be so?

Sidestepping the issue by calling for independence yet retaining the Royal Family is in the same league as leaving the Union only to join the EU and surrender exactly what you have just fought for.

Popular opinion is not ready for massive constitutional changes. In truth, neither are the politicians.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.



“MOURNERS lined the streets all the way from Balmoral to Holyrood.”

This was the message broadcast as “news” over the radio while TV cameras searched for another person waving a Union Jack in Edinburgh.

This was after overhead cameras had borne witness to the funeral procession passing more than a hundred miles of roadside devoid of people, never mind an emblem of British nationalism.

The passing of a life provides a moment for respectful reflection, but blatant propaganda stains the memory of a monarch highly regarded by many in Scotland.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian.



I CANNOT be alone in being affronted by the proposal that the Stone of Destiny be removed from Scotland to London for the forthcoming coronation of King Charles III.

Edward I of England, in his rampages through Scotland, seized the Stone specifically so that he could place it humiliatingly under his own throne as a lasting and insulting symbol of the subjugation of a recalcitrant Scotland which had fiercely resisted his suzerainty.

Much was made of the return of the Stone to Scotland in 1996 as a token of respect for the Scottish nation.

Surely King Charles would do well to avoid repeating the insult and humiliation of the symbolism intended by Edward Longshanks.

Indeed, his own respect for our nation would be greatly enhanced if he were to decline to have the Stone reinstalled under the Coronation throne.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh.



IN response to the letter (September 12) from John V. Lloyd, I write as someone who can recall the sudden, sad death of King George VI, seventy years ago.

In my primary school, we were eating lunch ( rabbit stew and tapioca) when the headmaster entered and banged a spoon on the table for silence, to announce that the king had died.

As a child in his class, our afternoon was spent copying the words of the National Anthem from school hymn books, substituting ‘Queen’ for ‘King’, et cetera.

We wrote it out with scratchy, dipping pens and learned it by heart. Finally we had to recite it in turns, round the rows of desks.

Memories that have remained with me since a dark, damp day in February 1952.

Olive Bell, Dunbar, East Lothian.



ONE amongst us, elected by none amongst us, will be crowned our new head of state.

One amongst us, elected by a very few amongst us, is to be our next Prime Minister.

A very, very few amongst us, favoured by one amongst us, will be elevated to the largest unelected chamber outwith China.

One amongst us, (John Harrison, letters, September 9), believes that the pursuit of a referendum in which most amongst us can cast a vote ”smacks of totalitarianism not democracy”. Really?

Alan Carmichael, Glasgow.



AS sad as it is that the Queen has died, particularly for her family and some citizens of the UK, the constant drivel of reminiscing and sycophantic grovelling is an insult to those who have lost or are dealing with a death, or imminent death, of a loved one, and are being force-fed the death of a 96-year-old woman who lived a full and cosseted life.

The most import person, for me personally, to have died suddenly, very recently, was my darling husband aged 69, and yet I do not expect the public to change their behaviour in any way other than empathise with me for my loss.

I rely on the TV as a distraction to alleviate my own personal grief and suffering and not constantly be reminded of his death.

I know what it feels like at first hand to be dealing with the death of a loved one and the over-indulgent tv scheduling is insulting to my dear husband’s memory and to my own pain and grief.

The charade of trawling the Queen’s remains through the streets of the UK is more reminiscent of a Communist parade. Allow the woman a dignified send-off and rest in peace in the bosom of her family.

Christine Smith, Troon.



I HAVE to disagree with Neil Stewart regarding the BBC coverage of the Queen’s journey from Balmoral to Edinburgh (letters, September 12).

I thought Martin Geissler’s contribution was outstanding, well-observed, informed, humorous when appropriate, and delivered, like any great broadcaster who has done their homework, in a style that appeared effortless.

Stuart Neville, Clydebank.



NEIL Stewart was spot-on with his assessment of the BBC’s woeful coverage of the Queen’s journey from Balmoral to Edinburgh. It’s a pity he didn’t just switch channels.

Sky News was excellent. Presenter Anna Botting had obviously done her homework, Scotland correspondent James Matthews knew his patch intimately, and commentator Alastair Bruce was flawless, providing many wonderful stories, anecdotes and gems of history along the six-hour journey.

Andy Stenton, Glasgow.



THE BBC’s coverage, especially on the Thursday and Friday of last week, got the tone just right – sober and factual without being emotional. It was breaking-news broadcasting of the highest order.

The BBC has no shortage of critics, especially from media organisations that are part of media groups that are its commercial rivals. The performance of Huw Edwards and colleagues was a reminder of the value of the BBC at times of national and international importance.

M. Jones, Glasgow.



I COULD not have been more offended by the letter by Alexander McKay (September 12) which painted a picture of Nicola Sturgeon I did not recognise.

It suggested that until this point in our nation’s history, our First Minister in her official capacity often lacks dignity and grace in performing public engagements. This could not be further from the truth.

Ms Sturgeon, in carrying out her role as Scotland’s First Citizen, has always given this position the dignity and grace it deserves.

She is recognised globally as a result of her leadership and selflessness to duty.

Catriona C Clark, Banknock, Falkirk.



IT was gratifying to see Nicola Sturgeon sign the oath following the speech in which King Charles III undertook to uphold ‘the acts passed in the parliament of both kingdoms for union of the two kingdoms’. And so say all of us!

I trust that Ms Sturgeon’s ardent supporters will take note of her endorsement of the union of Scotland and England in the United Kingdom.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh.