HAVING just returned from a fascinating cruise around Iceland, the Faroes and believe it or not, Montrose, I am left with many images and impressions. Firstly, there is the fact that the populations of the small northern communities are doing very well by organising their lives and resources to suit their own needs.

Secondly, I was struck by the almost total lack of knowledge about Scotland and Scottish politics displayed by my fellow passengers, overwhelmingly well-heeled English Tories. Taking me for one of their own and obviously grasping at straws, more than once I was asked eagerly if Ruth Davidson might be a good choice as successor to Mrs May. They seemed disappointed by my hysterical laughter and gloomily muttered about there being no-one else.

READ MORE: Ruth Davidson makes the case for independence

Finally, at Montrose we were treated to a short talk on Scottish politics by one of the region’s list MSPs. The main thrust of this seemed to be how different Scottish Conservatives were from Conservatives in London. In particular he explained that in Scotland they were Conservative Unionists, whereas in Westminster they were just Conservatives. But all Unionists, of course.

I didn’t get a chance to ask him to which party he paid his party membership. In any case by this time I confess to feeling almost as bemused as the rest of the audience. However, on reflection I can see a pattern emerging; that of the deliberate adoption by the Tories in Scotland of the chameleon-like, shape-shifting policy typified by Davidson.

Peter Craigie

Edinburgh

I ENJOYED reading the article about Belfast Celtic In Saturday’s National but the statement that Scotland never played club sides again is incorrect (A Grand Old Team ready to rise from the ashes, August 18). Scotland played Rangers in the John Greig testimonial in 1978 just before the World Cup. Rangers won 5-0 and Dennis Law said that Bobby Russell must be in Ally Mcleod’s squad. He wasn’t, and the rest is history. Don’t cry for me Argentina!

Bill Roberton

Letham

SO a leaked Cabinet paper tells us that European Nationals are “allowed to stay” in the UK, even if there is no Brexit deal with the EU.

The UK is taking the moral high ground, unilaterally (and graciously) granting us the right to continue with our lives. Many thanks. After two years of uncertainty, nightmares and scare stories, not to mention numerous welcoming comments in the various tabloids (kick ‘em out, scroungers, scum, garbage and gimmigrants) we are now able to pay our £65 fee, answer a few questions and carry on as normal. If the Home Office doesn’t make any mistakes, that is.

This treatment is in sharp contrast to what the Scottish Government did. Immediately after the Brexit referendum I received a letter signed by my local MSP Roseanna Cunningham stating that my family and I were welcome.

READ MORE: Letters: The SNP have made sure non-UK citizens feel welcome

That letter meant a lot. But of course Holyrood didn’t have the powers to grant me and other European citizens the right to carry on as normal. How I would like to see that changed!

Trudy Duffy

Crook of Devon

MICHEL Barnier, the European Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator has said the UK Government has not yet agreed to protect geographical indications (GI) such as Scotch Whisky.

I understand that England is now producing whisky so there will be no harm to Britain if these GI’s are lost in the Brexit process, after all isn’t British whisky the same thing (and will boost the English GDP)?

READ MORE: Fresh call to protect Scotland the Brand after Brexit

Is it not the same as Scottish meat, bacon, poultry, fish, shellfish, salmon, and fruit which are already branded as British? What about Harris Tweed?

My question is what are Scottish consumers and farmers – and in particular the SNFU and the Scotch Whisky Association – saying about this? Do Unionists suggest we should quietly acquiesce to the eradication of Scotland the Brand?

C Walker

Aberdeenshire

THERE is a big headline today about how few people are saving for their old age and the crisis it will cause for the care system.

Well, it is certainly to be recommended that we should all save for our future. But aren’t people paying their national insurance contributions just as we of the older generations did all of our working lives? And doesn’t that imply that we ought to expect to be taken care of in old age by the welfare state which is the cornerstone of this precious union to which we all belong, whether by choice or otherwise? Surely it could never be the case that those who do not save are the wise ones. After all, the bankers must get their bonuses or they may leave.

Robert Johnston

Airdrie