Like other Scots exiled south ot the Border I will, it seems, soon be able to choose to die. Of course I understand the feelings of those supporters of the bill. Many, or most, of them have had to witness the horrific death of loved ones and would not want to see this experience repeated. My fear is that, despite the many sincere and well meaning safeguards that will undoubtably be put in place, the passage of time will see those safeguards eroded or relaxed. Who amongst the supporters of the bill can guarantee that future generations will want the “choice” not to be entirely that of the patient? Little has been heard of the Hippocratic Oath in this debate. I understand that the oath has been subject to a number of interpretations but I suspect Hippocrates would flinch at the prospect of his successors offering patients a pill that will kill them. This is too important an issue to be left to parliamentarians and a referendum is the only and clearest way for Scotland to take stock. John Rhind, Beadnell, Northumberland Peer pressure After that favourable Commons’ vote on assisted dying is it really now down to the unelected upper house to declare its opinion about what the people need, seemingly regardless of what the people actually want? Isn’t assisted dying legislation a classic case of a law that should be decided instead by the people as a whole through an informed national referendum? Too often we the people have been obliged to obey laws without our say so. Blair obliged us to invade Iraq; Major took us from the Common Market into the European Union; Cameron obliged us to invade Libya, (but to his eternal credit did permit us to decide if we wished to stay in the EU). We were all on Thatcher’s side when she ordered the recapture of the Falkland Islands, but I doubt that’ll be so if the Lords deliberately procrastinate to ensure the bill fails because it has run out of time. I agree that what has been passed has several faults which the Lords could sort out. Eight years ago I was given a terminal diagnosis for melanoma cancer. I put my affairs in order and awaited the end, only for a doctor to put me on to an experimental drug called Pembrulizumab which set in motion a successful immunotherapy, and so here I am still at 88. I mention that as I would make assisted dying available, at first anyway, only to mentally competent persons over 80 years of age because before then the possibility of ‘miracle’ cures exists, as I now have proven. An informed referendum, please, on an improved bill. Tim Flinn, Edinburgh Rogue states For a man who managed to give money to Gaza that was given to Holyrood to be spent on the Scottish people, Humza Yousaf is certainly persistent. He now wishes to extend his personal interest in the politics of the Middle East into domestic politics by denying US aircraft the use of airports in Scotland. This is in line with his party’s similar policy of wanting to deny Nato vessels carrying nuclear weapons to come here, despite being part of our defence shield. Mind you, the SNP is loudly against defending ourselves. Mr Yousaf’s latest outburst echoes his comments that Israel is a “rogue state”. Like all nations, Israel has its fair share of black marks on its copybook. Consider the mass killing in the King David Hotel bombing by Jewish terrorists in 1946. Israel is quite open when it uses force. Following the recent terrorist outrage in Kashmir, India struck back against the people they blame for it, namely Pakistan. The world is too full of such attacks on “soft” targets and nations are entitled to respond against those they see as the puppet-masters behind such attacks. Who can blame Israel when Iranian proxies massacred their citizens at a music festival and hold others hostage? We all know that Iran’s uranium enrichment has only one purpose, which is to make a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel and wipe it off the map. Does Mr Yousaf really expect Israelis, or anyone else to just sit and let them do it? There is only one “rogue state” I can see and that is Iran. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Day jobs Why are John Swinney and indeed Humza Yousaf pontificating about the situation in Iran (Scotsman, June 23)? Foreign affairs are wholly retained by Westminster and, as per the Scotland Act, are explicitly outwith the jurisdiction of Holyrood. Yousaf is yesterday’s man, and few care what he thinks, but Swinney, like it or not, heads up a devolved administration. The taxpayer employs MPs at Westminster to address international affairs while we pay Swinney and Yousaf to focus on such crucially important areas as the NHS, education, housing and roads. But perhaps this is simply too dreary for them? SNP politicians seemingly imagine that speaking out on international conflicts bigs them up in our eyes, yet the opposite is very much the case. It draws attention to their dismal performance in managing a vitally important raft of public services that the people of Scotland rely on each and every day. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Scottish Borders International law Gerald Edwards’ support for Israel is ludicrous, as is his support for Trump’s bombing of Iran (Letters, June 23). When Israel attacked Iran without warning it breached international law. A state is only permitted to attack another state if it presents an imminent danger. Netanyahu claimed that Israel was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, refuted that. Trump’s bombing of Iran also broke international law, and also broke the constitution of the United States because it was an act of war. The US President can only declare war if Congress approves it. Congress can only approve war against a country if that country poses an immediate and grave military threat. Iran posed no threat to the United States. By breaking the constitution, Trump lays himself open to impeachment. Israel assassinated a number of Iranian nuclear scientists including the lead negotiator in the talks to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme which were scheduled to take place on the Sunday after Israel attacked in what was described as a “Pearl Harbour moment” for Iran, without declaration of war, and therefore a war crime. Like many, I believed Donald Trump’s pre-election claims that he would end America’s endless wars. Sadly I was wrong. As American military analyst Colonel Douglas Macgregor said commenting after the bombing of Iran: “We are the rogue state in support of the other rogue state.” William Loneskie. Lauder, Scottish Borders No sense of shame So Douglas Alexander, MP for Lothian East – who was complicit as a cabinet minister in the UK Government in taking the UK into an illegal war in Iraq and is now complicit in supporting a fanatical Israeli government regime accused of genocide in Gaza and engaged in bombing Syria, Yemen and Iran – proclaims that Scotland is in a “voluntary union” but yet he cannot state (as evidenced on BBC Scotland’s Sunday Show) a democratic route for Scotland to leave this union. It appears not only that Mr Alexander and the Labour Party have abandoned any remaining principles but they unapologetically have no sense of shame, having apparently learned little from past mistakes and resultant catastrophes. We can do better and the parliament we elect should have the power to conduct a constitutional referendum so that we in Scotland can determine our own future, including our own non-imperialist foreign policy. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian Gael force I am delighted that the national importance of Gaelic has been recognised, unanimously, by the Scottish Parliament. Gaelic is more than a language, it is part of the cultural identity of our nation. It is heritage and history, vital to the story of Scotland’s sovereignty and indeed predates English by well over 1000 years. For those detractors that say it is a dead and useless language and a financial drain, I say shame on you. Through centuries of oppression and abuse Gaelic has survived and now with music and the arts and a longing for independence, there is a resurgence. Only in knowing the history of your country, can there ever be confidence in its future destiny. Wrapped around its ancient Celtic identity, Scotland remains a reawakening nation that has, in the past, given much to the world. Grant Frazer, Newtonmore, Highland Matter of principal I’m a proud son of Edinburgh and as a graduate (MA, 1966) of the Tounis College, I keep a strong interest in developments there. However, news can take time to reach London, where I am now based; and so I have only just seen an account of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor’s appearance earlier this month in front of of the Education Committee of the Scottish Parliament. For Sir Peter Mathieson to say “I do not carry the figure about in my head” when asked about his salary doesn’t just beggar belief, it smacks of arrogance and disrespect. It’s also worrying that, faced with a financial crisis in the university, its head seems not to be able to remember basic numbers. The principal has lost credibility and, I would suggest, any respect. He should at least try to preserve some fragment of his reputation, do the decent (and right) thing by the University of Edinburgh and resign. Sir James HodgeLondon Write to The Scotsman We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to lettersts@scotsman.com including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.