The No Campaign’s press conference on Monday emphasised that its expert opinion concluded that the UK would continue as an existing state, holding on to all the benefits, and that Scotland would have to be created as a new state, with all the disadvantages that this could bring.
The media followed this line in their reporting. It now appears (your report, 12
February) that the expert opinion offered three scenarios, not one. The second was that two new states would be formed, and the third was that Scotland would be resurrected as the state that existed before 1707. Why were these options hidden?
It is clear that the Westminster government would prefer the first option.
It may profess great respect for Scotland, and a strong
desire for us to remain in the Union; but as soon as the
status quo is threatened it will try to take all the benefits for itself and positively work to make things difficult for Scotland.
Those who are timorous about voting Yes, and are hoping for a form of devo-plus following a No vote, should realise that once England has seen off the threat of independence the devolutionary process will come to a shuddering halt.
Westminster will continue to work and legislate for the majority, English, voter. We have been warned!
Alison Halley
Newbattle Abbey Crescent
Edinburgh
As Scottish Secretary Michael Moore proclaims the benefits to Scotland of staying in the UK with the launch in the first of a series of UK government information reports, one has to ask some fundamental questions: is
anyone naïve enough to
believe that significant
information which undermines this proposition will not be withheld if possible, especially given the UK government’s non-disclosure of the true status of North Sea oil reserves prior to the referendum on devolution?
If unsure, is the UK Government’s reluctance to seek clarification from the EU on Scotland’s possible position in the event of a positive vote in the referendum not at odds with any sincere desire that the Scottish people base their decision on facts, not fiction?
Does anyone actually believe that those parties, which so recently endorsed the recommendations of the Calman Commission as being a great deal for Scotland (with some Tories expressing the view that perhaps devolution had gone too far), will immediately work together after a negative vote in the referendum to deliver substantially increased powers for Scotland (“devo-Moore”), whatever the result of the UK elections in 2015 and whatever is contained in their
manifestos?
Those with short memories should note that these same parties unashamedly reneged on key promises such as reform of the House of Lords and a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.
Has anyone such little understanding of basic economics and politics that they think that whatever benefits Scotland would still derive as a member of a Union whose influence around the world has dramatically declined would come without paying a considerable price for sustaining the bureaucracy around an increasingly
redundant Westminster parliament, never mind the social cost of further governments pursuing policies not in tune with the wishes of the people of Scotland?
Hopefully now that we are entering a period of more serious debate on Scotland’s independence that will determine the prospects we
bequeath future generations, more people will make the effort to look objectively
beneath the surface of what is presented by the UK Government and a media predominantly committed to the constitutional status quo.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry
East Lothian
I am not an expert on international law, unlike the respected professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle of Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities, who have provided legal advice to the UK Government on the legal implications of Scottish independence (your report, 11 February), but there appears to me to be a fundamental misconception of the position of the two countries, England and Scotland.
The Treaty of Union 1707 was an agreement between two sovereign independent states to form a political union. If Scotland elects to secede from that union, then the two countries, Scotland and England, revert to being two separate countries.
England would not continue to be the “rest of the UK”, as that entity would not exist. Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the English state by military conquest. There would be no question of a “continuing state”, as England and Scotland would be newly restored independent states.
The examples quoted of new states are quite different from the position of England and Scotland, being mainly the result of the break up of empires.
Interestingly, the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, on becoming independent of the USSR in 1991, were admitted to the United Nations without any question.
George I M Chapman
Moor Road
Glasgow
AND THE NO CAMPAIGN SPEAKS OUT TOO:
Big questions
Published on Tuesday 12 February 2013 00:00
I write as a disillusioned observer of proceedings at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament.
Donald Dewar, advocate of the concept of the Scottish Executive, would have been appalled at the behaviour of certain SNP politicians within the debating chamber in today’s parliament.
The Labour leader, Johann Lamont, was completely justified recently, during First Minister’s Questions, when she accused SNP backbenchers of braying when opposition leaders put quite valid questions to Alex Salmond.
She also made the point that most questions asked by SNP members are so well vetted by their leader that they become irrelevant to the debate.
First Minister’s Questions is appallingly awful – Salmond makes every attempt to ridicule, in turn, the points made by the Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat leaders. In this ploy he gets full support from the rows of “hyenas” on his back benches.
Also one of these days, John Swinney, in his usual state of misplaced mirth, is quite likely to fall off his chair, which is usually perched precariously on just two legs.
As 2014, the referendum year, approaches, let us reflect on the status quo – what the UK has achieved, and will continue to achieve: stability in an even more complex political and economic scenario; under very difficult circumstances, maintenance of a strong voice in the EU; a continued special relationship with the USA.
So prithee, what will Alex Salmond’s concept of an independent Scotland really achieve? I really do feel that we Scots deserve more than he is capable of providing.
Just some of the pitfalls of his policies/assertions are obvious: Scotland would certainly have to apply to join the EU, and join the queue; if Scotland, as a new state, did gain entry eventually, it would require to adopt the euro; how effective would Scotland be within Nato? (its much reduced level of armed forces and weaponry might be unacceptable to other members); as would the SNP’s rejection of the established Faslane submarine base.
Then, of course, terms would have to be negotiated with the Bank of England – perhaps more difficult if Scotland is admitted to the EU and has to accept the euro as its currency.
So think carefully, fellow Scots, before casting your vote in the Scottish referendum.
If you make the wrong choice then you and your family might regret it forever.
Robert I G Scott
Ceres
Fife
Translation: “I write as a biased Brit who has no interest in his own country and is content to be ruled from England. While Westminster is a shambles where Scots are outvoted by a margin of 10-1 I prefer to criticise the Scottish Government for having political debates and Alex Salmond for winning them.
It is far better to be bitter together with Tory England than have the gross effrontery to imagine that the Saltire could fly in Europe and the UN and that we could rule ourselves. Don’t vote for equality or we will all be D-O-O-M-E-D and S-K-I-N-T. We need London to rule us as we are too wee and too dumb to ever rule ourselves.”
Another positive message from the NO YOU DON’T! campaign. Gee thanks Mr Scott!
Free Scotland Now! 