Two strands ran together in Saturday’s edition of The Scotsman. It was striking that the privileged position of the Duchess of Roxburghe (Obituaries, 12 July) did not protect her from an apparently abusive husband who used Scottish common law that “a wife lived in her husband’s house only by licence” – this in the 1950s. Yet she did well after a divorce, having not inconsiderable means of her own. Her father was the Marquess of Crewe and she was associated with various royals’ activities.
In addition, we read “how to prepare for your child’s further education” in the same issue, which indicates that parents could pay (in today’s money) £150,000-£300,000 for private schooling per child, even before the later years needed financing.
All the suggestions given to help with finding the money thus assumed families could somehow fork out, simplistically, £12,000-£24,000 per annum per child for schooling to get them into further education. A two-child family even on twice the average wage has no realistic chance of that, even by living as cheaply as possible. So, we are looking at privileged opportunities denied to the great majority.
How does the Yes campaigners propose to rectify this state of affairs? Its mantra is to get a fairer, more egalitarian society, but there are no indications at all of how this will be achieved. And Alex Salmond wants the Queen to continue as head of state, presumably together with all the associated establishment connections.
Perhaps the SNP folk who want a republic instead will find a way to achieve their goal – but why are they content to keep mum just now? If a republic is on the cards after separation, then the Yes folk should say so loud and clear so the electorate knows what it is voting for.
Cullicudden Dingwall, Ross-shire