Stop pressuring people to mourn the Queen – we should live and let live

In response to the article about national mourning, I feel that the author has hit the nail on the head.

Companies are in a scramble to out-mourn each other, posting sympathies and closing stores. Flights over London during the funeral will be cancelled, causing problems for those travellers. But what about the workers on zero hours contracts who will now lose a day’s pay?

What about the small companies now expected to pay workers for an extra day’s holiday while simultaneously losing a day’s business? And the hospitality sector which has suffered over a year of closure due to the pandemic, followed by restricted opening, is now under pressure to show its loyalty to the royal family and close its doors yet again.

I admired the Queen and fully appreciate those who wish to mourn, watch the funeral and reflect on her life. However, I don’t appreciate the pressure being put on businesses to close. As the owner of a small cafe, I want to open on Monday. I have offered staff who would rather not work that day the option to take the day off. Only one has taken up that offer.

Let those who want to mourn by watching the funeral do so. But equally, allow people to spend time doing the things they would normally do on a bank holiday without being made to feel that they are not patriotic enough, or are being disrespectful to the late Queen.

We need a little more live and let live, and less condemnation of those who don’t think the same as us.

Name supplied

Address supplied

Protocols for a period of “national” mourning. What can’t be done: striking for a living wage, treating the sick, playing football, asking who elected King Charles III, riding a bicycle, staying in – then leaving – the Centre Parcs chalet you’re holidaying in, hearing the “beep” of supermarket checkouts, holding hands.

What can be done during a period of national mourning: removing the cap limiting bankers’ bonuses, making 100 loyal royal household staff redundant.

Sasha Simic

London

It would be sensible for the Labour leader to consider Gordon Brown’s review regarding changes to the UK’s constitution, particularly in relation to Scotland.

After all, Brown is one of five Scottish-born leaders who have led the Labour Party since its foundation over a century ago, and his passion for the Union is unquestionable.

And despite the attention paid to the Tories’ political eclipse in Scotland since Thatcher, the harsh reality is that Labour’s political collapse in Scotland over the past 20 years has been far more spectacular.

So, ironically, the major UK political party supporting Scottish devolution since the 1990s has paid a greater price than the traditionally anti-devolution Tories, and now seems unable to extricate itself from a “no-win position” of remaining pro-Union without attracting pro-Union voters, while at the same time failing to entice its traditional working-class heartlands in the central belt to desert the Scottish Nationalists.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

This task has no doubt been made harder by Keir Starmer’s refusal to revisit the Brexit decision. Perhaps a stronger federal offer for Scotland – and indeed all of the UK – presents Labour with an opportunity to redefine its constitutional stance in a post-Elizabethan nation.

Paul Dolan

Cheshire

Our new chancellor wants to prioritise growth, so his first initiative is to allow bankers to enjoy massive bonuses.

How does this help growth? Or does it just secure votes?

Don Pilkington

Kettering