In the early stages of the independence debate, there were many, just like myself, resident in Scotland for 53 years, who regarded the whole idea of Scottish independence as ridiculous, promoted mainly by those minor politicians who wished to become large fish in a small pond.
However, we became slightly irritated by the manner in which David Cameron seemed to give every possible advantage in the referendum to Alex Salmond, who arranged all dates convenient to himself. The ultimate depths seemed to be reached when a picture appeared on television of Cameron and Salmond sitting side by side signing an agreement to extending voting powers to the age of sixteen. Why wasn’t the senior UK government minister in Scotland occupying the seat instead of Cameron?
Matters became more serious when it appeared as if the media were giving so much publicity to several claims of the "yes" camp regardless of whether they were based on solid foundations or not.
However, slowly the "no" camp roused itself and started to give details of future developments under the shelter of the United Kingdom which closely resembled those of the "yes" campaign. The main difference would be that any expense would be shared between 60 million people as opposed to five. As a result, the first £85,000 of each person’s investment in a bank is covered by the UK Government. Could an independent Scotland match that, particularly when we remember the sorry recent history of our banks, which are still supported by the UK Government?
Iceland and the Irish Republic solved their problems by allowing their banks to fail and young people from Ireland started emigrating to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Do we want to go down that road?
Creating a fuss about the NHS is so misleading as to be evil. In the NHS there are always bound to be financial constraints and some part of the service is bound to be privatised. This is can be beneficial in certain circumstances.
Much is made of Scottish identity by the "yes" group. But what is it? My immediate descendants include English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Italian and Russian blood, so you take your pick! Three of my four offspring work south of the border and are likely to remain there as the opportunities are so much better.
England and Scotland work well together and who would want to encounter the vast upheaval involved in separation? What a waste of money.
I have voted "no" by post in the expectation that it will provide most of the services that the "yes" campaign promises, plus the addition of well-conceived support that an experienced larger unit such as the UK can provide. A "no" vote allows consideration of the problem again in the future. With a "yes" vote it will be final.
John Kiely, Dumfries
SNP supporters are deluded if they think that, supposing they win on 18 September, they will have achieved an independent Scotland. They will not. First Minister Alex Salmond intends to keep the use of sterling in Scotland and he wishes to retain the Queen as some sort of Head of State. That will not be independence, it will be so-called devo-max (maximum permissible devolution.) This will not be what most independence supporters will have voted for. There will probably be other links Salmond wishes to retain but we have not be told what they will be.
This whole messy business exemplifies the half-truths, lies and deceit, which have been the constant features of the SNP propaganda supporting the campaign for independence.
It is beyond comprehension as to why anyone would entrust the leadership and government of Scotland to Salmond and the SNP when they have proved time and time again unwilling and incapable of answering the most fundamental questions about Scotland's future, especially its economy, and have shown a remarkable ability to ignore important facts, such as being told Scotland will not be able to retain the link with sterling or automatically join the European Union. For instance, how are the communities and transport-links of the Western Isles going to be financed without depriving other regions of large funds? Who will fund and maintain the Scottish railway system, including the inter-city links across what will be an international border? And although we are told Scotland is rich in potential for tide- and wind-generated electricity, who, apart from the small Scottish population, will pay to use it?
Since I live on the Firth of Clyde and the Royal Navy bases of Faslane and Coulport (where the nuclear warheads are actually stored) are in my parish, I must correct the mis-information in Duncan MacLaren's article ("Free and fair", The Tablet, 6 September) – another feature of SNP propaganda. MacLaren can airily dismiss the loss of 520 civilian jobs at Faslane. I have to be more caring and pastoral about such redundancies because some of those 520 people are members of my church. However, MacLaren seems to be unaware that there are upwards of 9,000 personnel employed at the 2 bases. All told they put a lot of money into the local economy of a large part of West-Central Scotland. It would be good to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction at Coulport, but use the bases for conventional ships instead – the new aircraft carriers, for instance, which can prove very useful for other roles as well as war-fighting platforms? But if the Royal Navy is forced to leave, there will be absolutely nothing on the same scale as a replacement.
Mr MacLaren's suggestion of filling the Firth of Clyde with oil and gas rigs is very naive. Is it really likely that permission would be given to fill the Firth with smoke-and flame-belching rigs and thus ruin the views of one of the most magnificent estuaries in northern Europe? Thousands of tourists come to Western Scotland to enjoy these views, and in doing so pump a lot of money into the economy. Mr MacLaren may also be unaware that the Firth of Clyde is a commercial waterway of some importance, used by very large oil- and bulk-carriers, container ships, various ferries, fishing boats, many small pleasure craft, and 30 to 40 very large cruise ships per year.
Finally, I think that the myth about the superiority of how politics is practised in Scotland as compared with England, apparently believed by MacLaren and some of your recent correspondents, needs to be dispelled. There is now no difference at all in political practice and behaviour either side of the Border. What may be different is that if Salmond and the SNP gain an independent Scotland, it will be in effect a one-party state, with extremely untrustworthy politicians leading it. That prospect should be deeply disturbing.
David Cook, Parish Priest and Rector, St Michael's Scottish Episcopal Church, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute
Duncan MacLaren writes that in 28 of the 65 years between 1945 and 2010, Scotland rejected the governments elected at Westminster. In other words, in 37 of those years it accepted them. Lucky Scotland! Most parts of the UK cannot expect to get the governments they vote for, more than about half the time. Further, were Scotland to become independent, up to half the Scottish regions are unlikely to get the governments they vote for at any one time.
I would add that London, much derided by Scottish nationalists, did not get the government it voted for in 2010. Only 28 of the 73 constituencies returned Tory MPs.
Alan Pavelin, Chislehurst, Kent
Your introduction to Duncan MacLaren’s article describes him as charity worker and academic but fails to mention his role as an SNP activist and sometime organiser. Much of his content is standard SNP output which would not stand up to closer scrutiny. I would also dispute his assertion that the high percentage of pro-independence Catholics (36 per cent, as opposed to 16 per cent of Protestants and 27 per cent of non-believers) in a 2012 survey is a result of Catholic social teaching. More likely it is the victim culture prevalent among many Scottish Catholics of Irish origin, and fanned by some of the comments of the Peter Kearney, the hierarchy’s press spokesman and another active “yes” campaigner and former SNP parliamentary candidate. Incidentally, how many Scottish bishops agree with Mr Kearney’s comments or had even read them before issue?
There has always been a republican streak in Scottish nationalism, and in his youth Salmond was among its strongest adherents. While on a back-burner now, it is not dead and may be part of the SNP’s appeal to voters of Irish origin. Note two interesting dates: firstly, 16 September, 2014 – independence referendum, centenary of passing of Government of Ireland Act 1914 establishing effective home rule within the UK (“devo max” in today’s jargon); and secondly, March 2016 – stated target for independence, celebration of centenary of Easter Rising 1916, which blew the 1914 settlement out of the water and was a contributory factor to the divided Ireland we now know. (The actual date of the rising was in April, but as nationalism is essentially a secular religion, it was natural to adapt the moveable Christian feast of Easter to its requirements.)
Just a coincidence, or a pointer to SNP thinking?
John McMaster, Mount Vernon, Glasgow
I cringed on reading Mr MacLaren's piece. His assumption that Scotland is going to be miraculously a better, fairer, freer, more inclusive society is, at the very least, naive. Since devolution, health, education, housing, infrastructure, and the like are all the responsibility of Holyrood, it is quite wrong to lay blame for their inadequacies at the feet of Westminster.
As to banking, Alex Salmond was only too ready to encourage RBS in its greed to take over ABN Amro, and what happened then?
The nuclear deterrent question is also somewhat of a red herring; if Trident et al were moved elsewhere in the British Isles, we would still be no safer from any attack/fallout than we are now.
The Nordic countries may seem like the perfect examples of small independent nations, but they are very highly taxed (70 per cent in at least one case). They still have problems with drug and alcohol abuse, are as prone to family break-up, and are no more tolerant of migrants than we in Scotland.
Mr MacLaren's commitment to the land of his birth is indeed admirable; I would deem it more so had he lived and worked in Scotland these last 18 years instead of gracing Rome and Sydney with his presence.
EPA Carruthers, Dormont, Lockerbie
There are many people in the rest of the UK who have never voted Conservative and – even when they have not – have felt unhappy or even betrayed by the resulting Westminster government. That is the nature of democracy. If Scotland achieves independence on 18 September, it will not be as a result of the Scottish people voting for it, but as a result of about only half of the voting Scottish population expressing their wishes. That again is the nature of democracy. I hope that winners, whoever they are, will work for harmony with those who were on the losing side so that Scotland, in or out of the UK, will continue to be a proud and happy country.
Mick Duggan, Banstead, Surrey
With a few days to go to the most important vote of our lives, as a Catholic living in Scotland may I urge all people to vote “no” on 18 September?
I am very aware that Catholic social teaching emphasises that the poor need our support, through government support or charity. However, after two years of debate, analysis and reflection, I have to say that I see a “yes” vote as severely damaging, not improving, the life chances of so many people in Scotland. The immense uncertainty the break-up of the United Kingdom would cause, coupled with disruption to businesses and jobs, as firms necessarily move south to be with their larger customers, would hurt the poor of Scotland far more than the mobile rich.
Solidarity and community are important concepts in Christianity, and I do not want to turn my back on my brothers and sisters who may need my help, whether they live in Liverpool or Plymouth or, closer to home, in Leith.
Rosemary Hayes, Edinburgh
In your issue of 13 September you carry a letter from Michael Lloyd which states that the Act of Union established a polity which created a new state. The Act (or more properly the Acts, there were two of them) did not in fact do this. All that happened was that the English parliament remained as before save that the Scottish parliament was disbanded and Scotland was allowed to send a certain number of MPs to the English parliament. Almost all of the Scottish institutions of government remained without a legislature to effect necessary changes. Since that time all kinds of devices have been devised to cope with this problem. A Scottish Grand Committee was created. It had its difficulties. If it did not properly reflect the balance of power in parliament as a whole, it had to be filled up with a suitable number of English MPs. Another device was to restore a Scottish parliament but only on a devolved basis. This created another serious anomaly. Scottish MPs could and can vote on all English home affairs matters but English MPs cannot discuss or vote on similar matters affecting Scotland. This problem is otherwise known as The West Lothian Question. It can only be resolved by returning sovereignty to Scotland.
Scotland and England are two nations each with their own very different institutions. Scotland is not, never has been and, please God, never will be part of England. Each nation requires to be sovereign in order to be part of the family of nations.
Jamus and Helen Smith, Aberdeen
On his website "Wings Over Scotland" the Revd Stuart Campbell states, "A very great deal of what you've been told about independence in the last few years by Unionist politicians and the media is, to be blunt, a tissue of half-truths, omissions, misrepresentations and flat-out lies."
I thought this was a bit strong until I read the article in The Tablet (13 September) about the Scottish Referendum by Professor Jim Gallagher, who is described as the Gwilym Gibbon Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford. He is in fact an avid Unionist and an adviser to the "Better Together Campaign".
Exactly what the Revd Campbell says on his website – half truths, omissions and misrepresentations.
Daniel Murray, Stevenston, North Ayrshire
As a Catholic of Irish and Scottish descent I'm extremely proud of my heritage and equally proud to be Scottish. However, I've never ever since I can remember been proud to be British. I don't feel British and apart from the fact I have to hold a British passport I never write down that I am British on any documents that I have to fill in. I remember at school being laughed at and ridiculed when I asked if I could put "Scottish" down as my nationality. That at least is now not so much the case. There are great parallels when I consider my Scottishness with my Catholicism. I've been openly ridiculed and derided for being a Catholic in social situations and I believe that there are still challenges Scotland has to face with anti Irish/Catholic sentiment in public life in our country.
As far as Scotland's relationship with England goes I feel that the bonds between our countries will be strengthened by Scottish independence, not diminished. Things like listening to Radio Scotland etc. are all possible now in the digital age and will be, post independence. However, the real basis of independence for Scotland is nothing to do with sentimentality. Professor Sir Tom Devine, the renowned Scottish historian and author, makes the case when declaring his decision to vote yes: "The Scottish parliament has demonstrated competent government and it represents a Scottish people who are wedded to a social democratic agenda and the kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the welfare state of the late 1940s and 1950s. It is the Scots who have succeeded most in preserving the British idea of fairness and compassion in terms of state support and intervention. Ironically, it is England, since the 1980s, which has embarked on a separate journey."
He also analysed the progress of the Union since its birth in 1707 and the reasons why it had worked for both countries, but why he believes it is coming to a natural end. "The union of England and Scotland was not a marriage based on love. It was a marriage of convenience. It was pragmatic. From the 1750s down to the 1980s there was stability in the relationship. Now, all the primary foundations of that stability have gone or been massively diluted."
I'll still continue to venture over the "invisible" border to visit my family after we vote "yes". I'll do so as a proud Scot who believes that his country should take its rightful place at the top table with other countries small and large across the world, including the rest of the UK. We won't have to take part in illegal wars that we didn't vote for or indeed be dictated to by parties that we didn't vote for. Scottish independence will be good for the world, not just Scotland.
Jim Brown, Gourock, Inverclyde
Separation will involve terminating a union in which our Welsh, Northern Irish and English partners wish us to remain. To secede unilaterally can only be justified if we are deeply unhappy or can show this to be in the interests of all of the UK. Neither condition really obtains. The differences in social attitudes have tended to be exaggerated in the recent debate.
Surveys suggest that Scots are more like their southern neighbours than Scandinavians, which is hardly surprising. While the decommissioning of Trident is desirable and has been advocated consistently by the Churches, its proposed handover to the abridged UK followed by Scottish application for membership of a nuclear NATO does not appear to represent much moral progress.
We also need to be realistic about two further matters. First, the break-up of the UK is likely to be acrimonious if pleas for Scotland to remain go unheeded. Resentment is inevitable and could take more than a generation to heal. Second, the likely place of Scotland as an independent state in the EU will result in one form of interdependence being traded for another. EU member states will surely insist on the adoption of the euro - why wouldn't they? This is a subject that politicians on both sides of the debate have tended to sidestep. But are the Scots really up for the euro or the significantly higher taxation rates of Scandinavia? The strategy of the Yes campaign suggests otherwise.
British identity has been eroded and a new politics has emerged in Scotland following the re-establishment of our parliament. But this suggests that the opportunity of further devolution should now be explored. A more federal structure would enable Scotland to remain within the UK alongside its neighbours with a common currency, single market and head of state. At the same time, it also offers the possibility of developing policies to promote a greater measure of equality and social justice. And if similar federal powers can be devolved to other parts of the UK, then so much the better; there are signs already of growing support for this.
A majority "yes" vote next week will forever prevent a more federal UK in which Scotland can play an important part. A No vote does not maintain the status quo, but creates other possibilities without a divisive split from those who have been our neighbours and friends for several centuries.
The UK can be reformed from within; its component parts can each make a contribution to a better whole. And if Swansea can play in the Premiership, then why not Celtic?
David Fergusson, Edinburgh
Loading ...
