BEING Scottish but having lived the greater part of my adult life on the continent of Europe I am disgusted by the cringing attitude of many Scots as regards the question of independence. I doubt very much whether there is any nation in Europe that would stand back and hesitate if it was a question of choosing their independence. Unfortunately Brexit has got mixed up with the independence issue. When William Scott (Letters, July 2) talks of democracy regarding the Brexit vote has he forgotten the 62 per cent vote to remain given by the people of Scotland? He seems to see us as an appendage at the top of England and of no real consequence. This is exactly the attitude taken by the Westminster Tory government.

At the moment we belong nowhere, have no idealism or identity. The Scots have a colossal inferiority problem. There is so much to be put right: alcoholism, drugs, domestic violence, smoking and an unhealthy diet. If we could take things into our own hands we would hardly do worse than being governed as at the moment from Westminster.

The Brexit business was a victory for English nationalism combined with sheer ignorance on the part of many voters who in their despair at feeling neglected by London made Brussels the scapegoat for their frustration.

James Dobbie,

Ardgowan Hotel,

St Andrews.

IT is with no little surprise that I find myself agreeing with the Unionist correspondents of this august journal.

Having read various letters condemning embarrassing behaviour by Scottish MPs at Westminster I decided to see for myself and watched the Opposition Day debate on the Claim of Rights for Scotland (“Blackford: Rights anger will hasten independence day”, The Herald, July 5).

It would have made any right-thinking person blush at some of the behaviour. One front bench MP by the name of Mundell shouted incessantly, gesticulated, pointed and generally behaved in such an animated manner that his face was brighter red than a Labour Party tie. Several MPs interrupted the person speaking to ask questions which had just been answered by the speaker which showed they had not even the capacity to listen.

What was even more shocking given the debate was about the historical right that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland and not with any parliament was an MP who represents a Scottish constituency shouting that he and is party would soon stop that. His electors must be very proud of their choice of representative (though I hesitate to use that word for someone who has obviously no interest in what the voters want).

As this behaviour became even more unedifying the Speaker had to interrupt several times and rebuke these unruly members for their juvenile antics. If this is their idea of democracy then they probably studied the Joseph Stalin book of political strategies though perhaps they would have been more at home representing an historical rotten borough.

So I have to admit that I concur with Keith Howell et al that the behaviour of some Scottish MPs is truly deplorable and sadly the Secretary of State for Scotland leads by infantile example. Anyone who watched this will agree that this bunch of Unionist MPs certainly do not represent the people of Scotland but proudly see themselves as the modern-day parcel of rogues.

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent,

Prestwick.

AS an “ordinary voter”, I would like to point out to Iain AD Mann (Letters, July 5) that it is the bullying school -playground behaviour of Ian Blackford and his little “gang” that has appalled me, and countless other voters. Their recent uncouth, undignified, and unprofessional behaviour highlights their unsuitability for public office.

I know I am not alone in feeling deep embarrassment at at their stage-managed “stooshies”.

Susan McKenzie,

20 Mossfield Drive,

Fort William.

THE Supreme Court in London will deliberate over the Scottish Parliament’s Continuity Bill on July 24/25. The purpose of this is to decide whether or not Holyrood has the competency to legislate on devolved matters after Brexit which would potentially override, or at least be in conflict with, the terms of the UK government’s EU Withdrawal Bill.

David Mundell is reported to have said that the UK Government would act in accordance with the Court’s decision. However, almost every statement he has ever made about how the UK Government would deal with Scotland in the Brexit context has evaporated in the reality of what actually happened.

The latest elephant to walk into the room is Section 35 of the Scotland Act. This is because, even if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Scottish Government, this clause would allow the UK Government to intervene and overrule the Scottish government. It is difficult to believe that this would turn out to be anything other than another example of the evaporation of David Mundell’s meaningless assurance.

At a hustings meeting in Peebles during the last General Election, I asked Mr Mundell what were the top three contributions he has made on behalf of Scotland during his time in the Cabinet of the UK Government. He said number one was his contribution to the Scotland Act.

It now appears that he was thinking of Section 35 in particular.

Dennis White,

4 Vere Road,

Blackwood, Lanark.

IT must surely stick in the craw of any fair-minded person to have to listen to the SNP complain and posture about the alleged improprieties of other parties. Not that criticism is not justified.

But, coming from the party whose leader – at the very minimum – misled the people of this country on fracking; on the “generational’’ referendum; on what she knew about the background of a minister she had proposed for office and then dumped, it stretches all credibility and trust to all observers but those on the zealot fringes.

As she used to be much more sure-footed, one must wonder if there is some malign force behind the throne pushing her into these scrapes.

Alexander McKay,

8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh.

I AM agnostic about the tourist tax proposed by the ruling group on Edinburgh City Council ("Little support for ‘tourist tax’",The Herald, July 6). I doubt, though, that this would have been proposed had not the SNP administration in Edinburgh starved councils of funds over recent years, to provide more money for their own projects and not least to enhance their own central control.

Jill Stephenson,

Glenlockhart Valley, Edinburgh.