When Ian Lakin (Letters, 12 August) pointed out, quite appropriately, that the Scottish financial position is not exactly too clever at the moment and that the gaping holes in the SNP’s finances would not be filled by oil revenue, Douglas Turner asks “who knows why” he does just accept what the SNP says.
Perhaps because he actually uses his critical faculties and has worked out that their figures do not add up.
Mr Lakin points out facts that Mr Turner seems to want to ignore. Indeed, Mr Turner also asks: “If the Scottish economy is such a basket case of subsidy junkies, why is the UK so desperate to hang on to us?”
We are the UK. Without Scotland, there is no UK. Is he seriously suggesting that any country – anywhere – actually wants to get rid of its territory and its citizens?
Does he know of any country that actually wants to weaken itself by splitting in two? If so, who? Germany? No. It united its two halves. Vietnam, perhaps. Oops.
They did the same. Russia and the Ukraine? Well, it looks as if Russia is making strides in doing a bit of uniting there too, except at gunpoint.
Desperate? Surely those who lost the referendum and who cannot accept or understand the outcome fall under that heading? As we say in Morningside: “You’ll have had your referendum.”
Andrew HN Gray
Allan Sutherland (Letters, 13 August) asks whether, if Jeremy Corbyn, with SNP-type policies, becomes UK prime minister, there will be any need for Scottish independence.
This recalls the 1945 UK general election. A Labour manifesto advocated Scottish self-government. When Labour was elected, with Clement Attlee as prime minister, we were told that since we now had a Labour government we no longer needed Scottish self-government.
Whatever the achievements of that government it was soon replaced by a Conservative one. Yes, whatever government our southern neighbours choose, we should still have our own.