Fascinating to once again see the independence debate viewed through the distorted prism of Alexander McKay’s arch-Unionist viewpoint.
(Letters, 27 December).
There have been many opinions expressed on the respective merits of becoming an independent nation or staying in the UK, some of which have been informed, some ill-informed and others blatant opportunistic scaremongering.
What I admire about Alexander McKay is his extraordinary talent to hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest.
I’ve been fortunate to be placed on record in these columns as a committed supporter of independence.
I respect Mr McKay’s wish for Scotland to remain a part of the UK, though not his consistent use of language such as “separation”.
However, what really sticks in my craw is how Mr McKay and his ilk consistently define the debate in terms of whether we will be better or worse off financially as an independent country.
My view is simple. I think we will be better off materially, but that is not the crucial issue. We will be infinitely better off living in a country with a political ethos and culture freed from the harsh right-wing policies coming from the Westminster parties so favoured by people like Mr McKay.
YOUR correspondent, Andrew HN Gray, has surely carved a niche in your columns as the Mr Angry of the independence debate, but his spleen has finally rendered him incoherent (Letters, 27 December).
Still, there remains the richly comic value of his accusation of “boundless hypocrisy “ and “double standards” by Nationalists.
Compared with his adored Britannia – “perfidious Albion” – we are amateurs and have no need to resort to lies and skulduggery.
They are always found out … just ask the British Army, the Metropolitan Police and the Westminster Parliament in relation to past cover-ups.