England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should join forces at the next Euros

With the Euros having dominated the media in recent weeks, it is impossible to avoid reflecting on how divisive tribal nationalism is. As a legacy of our history, multiple British teams enter, while other nations – some having unified much later – have abandoned or suppressed internal divisions, each fielding a single team.

Here, all the talk is about England and the English. The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish can’t help but feel that they are unrecognised components of the nation, not only outside our shores but, sadly, also within. One inevitable consequence is the fostering of independence movements amongst the Celtic nations and, in the medium term, almost certain fragmentation of the UK.

There could be value in considering whether to abandon the peculiar privilege of having four teams and, following other nations, enter only one, for which Britain as a whole can cheer.

Ian Reid

Kilnwick

It is thrilling to reflect upon Polly Dunbar’s article that 92 per cent of Keir Starmer’s first cabinet is state educated. Of course, the acid test of whether we are standing at the dawn of a more equal education-fueled society is how many of these politicians go on to have their children state educated.

Diane Abbott is a case in point. It is well known that the left-wing firebrand had her son privately educated, stating that the “personal was not political” when asked to comment. In truth, the electorate is keen for their representatives to reflect their values. So yes, the personal is political when it comes to education, use of the NHS, honest tax returns, fair expenses, family values and truth telling.

Beware Starmer, the “right-wing press” is watching!

David Smith

Taunton

Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, is quite likely to be a product – at least in part – of the cultural architecture created by his intended victim.

It is not so very long ago that the disgraceful assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, in his own home, was the subject of some very ugly rhetoric by Trump, in what might fairly be described as a derisory public address. The contrast between his calculated and callous response to that assault with the sympathy now extended to him by his political rivals could not be more stark.

Whatever the outcome of the rigorous examination of Crooks’s motivations, it seems probable that his murderous actions are likely to be associated with Trump’s own philosophies. By chance, Trump escaped relatively unharmed. Others did not.

Joe Biden addressed this serious incident, the political climate in which it occured, and its challenges for US society and public life with a simple eloquence. The situation must be diffused and what was a formerly tolerant normality restored.

If not, what might follow?

David Nelmes

Newport

Trump has, as The Independent’s editorial points out, behaved pretty well since the attempt on his life.

But it must be remembered that his previous actions, statements, and policies have contributed to making the US what it is – a divided, potentially violent society with easy access to firearms.

Outside the US, he has long been recognised as a very dangerous man, dangerous to his own country and the wider world. The attempt at his assassination has been universally, and rightly, condemned.

But we must hope that his fellow Americans don’t assume that a victim who survives such an assault is inevitably turned into a saint.

Susan Alexander

South Gloucestershire

As Winston Churchill once said: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

That lesson could have been learned the hard way this week.

The general public won’t be allowed to carry guns into the US Republican National Convention, but Wisconsin allows for the open carrying of guns in all other circumstances. Surely it’s time the US realised that so long as people can carry a gun, there will be some who abuse that power – often with deadly consequences.

Everyone was pleased that Trump survived the attempted assassination but given the climate in America, there are likely to be more incidents involving people from both sides of the political divide.

It’s time to look at the realistic option of restricting gun access to those protecting the public – the military, and law enforcement mainly. Being armed shouldn’t be an automatic right.

Dennis Fitzgerald

Victoria

California is baking, at least in the San Joaquin Valley where I reside along with more than 4 million residents. From Sacramento to Bakersfield, we are experiencing weeks of triple-digit temperatures topping out at 113 degrees (45°C).

What is most troubling is that the sweltering summers of record-breaking heat are beginning to seem normal, something to endure as we accept the drastically altered environment that climate change has wrought. Decades ago, summers with a couple of weeks of successive 100-degree temperatures were deemed newsworthy. There is absolutely nothing normal about the “new normal” we are experiencing.

Climate change is the kind of obvious existential crisis that should receive bi-partisan attention. Why Republican government leaders largely ignore the problem of climate change is mystifying. Democrats have owned the issue since Al Gore brought it to the country’s attention in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Since then, sides were drawn and Republicans for the greatest part remained the dismissive naysayers who responded to the growing, indisputable evidence of global warming by sticking their heads in the sand and throwing in their political lot with Big Oil.

We sit here in sizzling California with the wildfire season approaching, but we’re no worse off than people across the country experiencing similar heat waves or bracing for the upcoming hurricane season that arrived early with Hurricane Beryl. We are facing a future environmental calamity if we don’t take the only available path forward: drastically reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that produce climate change.

Tom Tyner

Clovis, California