The letters (9 January) regarding Brian Wilson’s latest piece (Perspective, 8 January) make interesting points, but it was two other aspects of the article which struck me.
Firstly, he apparently thinks Labour would be unable to win elections to an independent Scottish Parliament. What astonishing lack of faith in the party he espouses!
I would suggest significant numbers who might normally support other parties have been voting SNP as the only major party not controlled from London and therefore best able to fight Scotland’s corner.
After independence, this factor would disappear along with the SNP’s raison d’être.
Secondly, there is the plea not to abandon Labour’s heartlands to Tory rule, presumably on the basis that the lobby-fodder from Scotland might occasionally tip the balance at Westminster in Labour’s favour.
This could be seen as rather patronising towards Labour voters in England, while relegating the interests of those in Scotland to second place.
Paradoxically, it is the fear of Labour rule that could follow independence which drives some into the No camp.
So perhaps Mr Wilson is missing a trick. Or is he being very subtle?
Gordon Waddell (Letters, 7 January) asks: “If we vote No, will the SNP lose its whole raison d’être and disband?” and “Will they at the very least shut up about independence?”
Well, sorry to disappoint you, Mr Waddell, but the answer to all your questions is no – for the simple reason that this independence movement is here until it is successful and you may as well get used to it.
In the meantime, if you want straight answers, ask sensible questions.
One answer to the letter of Bob Bertram (Letters, 8 January) is that we would, in the event of a No vote, introduce the Scotland Act. Have people forgotten it?
This would give Scots clear evidence of where devolution of tax-raising will take us. It may prove to be what most people want.
In other areas, is the real demand not for devolution from Edinburgh to local authorities? Has this level of government not suffered since the formation of the Scottish Parliament?
Ib Hansen (“Nordic alliance sets example to Scots voters”, Perspective, 9 January) has been misled by the SNP’s propaganda.
As I pointed out in my letter (17 December), independence would not restore the unusual “Union of the Crowns”. If an independent Scotland chose to retain the British monarch as its head of state, it would merely become another Commonwealth dominion and would not obtain any special relationship with rUK.
Nor is the coming referendum “about untangling the 1707 Act of Union”, which ended the “Union of the Crowns”.
It is about breaking up the UK, which formed in 1800 with the union with the Irish crown, and pretending that Scotland is a colony of the British Empire. Scotland is not like Denmark and probably does not want to be.