I was amazed to read David Maddox’s charge (your report, 19 February) that the SNP is publicly distancing itself from independence movements in other countries.
If true, this is both politically and ethically a major blunder.
One of the most impressive features of last September’s independence rally in Edinburgh was the presence of representatives from several other national independence groups, including those of Catalonia and Quebec.
After this public demonstration of support for the Scottish Government’s central policy, it would be churlish, to say the least, if the governing party failed to express reciprocal support.
And what could be more obvious than the fact that mutual alliance among independence movements in different countries is to the advantage of their common cause?
The Scottish independence movement is not to be equated with the SNP; the government has shown commendable wisdom in recognising this.
But neither the party nor the movement is helped by crass rejection of friendly support from groups with similar aims.
I await an official clarification of the government’s policy in this matter.
In the event of a Yes vote in the 2014 referendum, the SNP plans to retain the monarchy, retain the pound, keep the Bank of England as lender of last resort, retain membership of the Monetary Policy Committee (which in effect hands economic control to Westminster), retain membership of Nato and apply for membership of the EU.
In light of recent attempts by SNP activists to use nit-picking terminological exactitude to dictate which words Scots may or may not use, they must be hoping nobody looks up the dictionary definition of “independence.”
Graham M McLeod