Letter: This is not what diehard Nationalists want

Published on Sunday 15 May 2011 15:48

Your report (14 May) that the SNP is preparing to settle for what is to be known as "independence-lite" comes as no surprise. In fact, it was only two weeks ago that I wrote in these columns, and was widely harangued for doing so, that they would do exactly that.

I cannot even say I am disappointed, having expected this as the likely outcome of the SNP's lack of commitment to independence over many years. The people who will be disappointed will be the ordinary party supporter or member, who has put his/her faith in the current leadership, in the belief that the softly-softly approach was the right tactic.

The SNP mantra "independence is a process not an event" has been fed to the Scottish electorate for some years and has succeeded in blinding people to the fact that the "process" is going to be much shorter than they expected. The "end game" as far as the SNP is concerned will fall far short of the expectations of those who trusted them most.

The current generation of SNP leadership and party membership are perfectly entitled to set whatever objectives they want. What they are not entitled to do is to diminish the reputations of those who preceded them by suggesting everything that went before was pale by comparison, or that the achievements of their predecessors were built on sand.

Those who wondered why unionists such as David Murray were backing Alex Salmond now have their answer.

JIM FAIRLIE

Heathcote Road

Crieff, Perthshire

Jim Sillars made a clarion call for Scots to make the first ever unilateral declaration of "devolution max", or devo max.

Leaving aside the inconvenient truth that devo max lacks coherent form, Westminster could refuse to acknowledge the declaration: Scots can take separation but we can't independently shape the internal workings of the British state.

In reality, devo max needs David Cameron's OK prior to a referendum, but why should he feel the need to concede while the SNP leadership plays charades with the definition of independence?

Understandably, Mr Sillars is trying save SNP strategy from meltdown, but he needs to traverse his "path of possible consequences". The likely scenario is a Westminster referendum in the autumn offering Scots the stark choice of life in/out of the Union. An SNP unprepared to fight for a New Norway on England's border means game over for Scottish independence.

CALUM MILLER

Polwarth Terrace

Prestonpans, East Lothian

Independence in the modern, interdependent world can never mean separatism, except in the minds of a few Labour/Tory diehards.

An independent Scotland would, of course, share many common services with the other nations of the British Isles, but surely we shall do so as partners and not as a subservient region.

It is not simply that Holyrood will control our domestic affairs while we leave defence, foreign affairs and control of the economy to London. With defence, we ought to share deployment of military resources, but we must have control over the wars and conflicts that Britain may want to drag us into. We must also have unfettered decision-making as to whether we wish to waste billions on nuclear weapons.

In foreign affairs, we have to remember that 80 per cent of our legislation comes from Europe and an independent Scotland must have an independent input into all European decisions that affect us. As for the economy, who, after recent events, would ever trust Britain to control our economic future?

GEORGE LESLIE

North Glassock

Fenwick, Ayrshire

You report that "under 'independence lite', Scotland could have a confederal relationship with England where the latter would retain control of the DVLA and the BBC". The BBC's remit is to broadcast to the whole of the UK (and Channel Islands) and whilst it has been slow to adapt to devolution it is hardly "controlled by England".

Such institutions like the DVLA, TV Licensing, BBC, Bank of England, FSA, HMRC etc all provide services to the UK and would continue to do so under "independence lite". Implying they are owned or controlled by England only fuels the "independence max" cause.

MICHAEL N CROSBY

Muiravonside

By Linlithgow