Gill Turner (Letters, 8 July) finds the view that women are more cautious when contemplating change “patronising”. I suspect that one of her comments on No voters who write to The Scotsman on independence would provoke a similar reaction.
If they are not “older” chronologically, she tells us, then they are older in mindset – or less “modern” in their thinking. Looking at two letters in the same issue might have a bearing on this interpretation. Sam McComb’s point seems to be as follows: rUK would have reduced oil revenues in the event of independence. Therefore there will be a currency union!
Richard Marsh’s point seems to be as follows: there is no obligation for an EU country to subsidise renewable energy from another country even if it is importing power from it. Therefore rUK would not continue to subsidise renewable energy in an independent Scotland.
I don’t have a clue as to the age of either writer – nor does it matter. One seems to present a mature and reasoned argument and the other doesn’t.
Change is not an inherently good thing. It is only good if it is for the better. If weighing up the risks of change against the potential benefits is old-fashioned then so be it. A mature rather than a “modern” approach seems to me to be preferable.
Ms Turner ends by saying: “Not many mothers or grandmothers would wilfully vote Yes if they thought independence would have a negative effect for their family.” Exactly – that is why the polls suggest most of them are likely to adopt a mature approach and vote No.
Braid Hills Avenue