Split personality

Share this article
Have your say

AS A southerner who knows only a little about the debate over Scottish independence I was interested to see (Letters, 27 May) the contribution from Messrs Turner and Duncan. This made me track down the letter from Andrew Gray which had made their blood boil.

Mr Turner seemed to see Mr Gray’s letter as an attack on Scottish servicemen who fought in the Second World War. I read Mr Gray’s letter again and failed to detect any such slur.

Mr Duncan is hurt by the view that Nationalists are narrow-minded and that Unionists want to rewrite history.

Surely it is reasonable to see that a small country which wants to separate itself from a small but important world power, even though this would involve the creation of a massive and costly public sector, is bound to be seen as provincial at best. That does seem narrow-minded to me. As for rewriting history, of course Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond does this, but don’t all politicians?

April Peabody

John Archer Way


The more I read and listen about independence the less I hear and see. I now read that Scotland will be a more enlightened country than England, I have heard that an independent Scotland will create more jobs, and I am told that we will be a more prosperous but fairer society.

Now I received a good education, but I don’t understand all of this.

Why are we not more enlightened today than our neighbours, for example? Is there some fundamental difference that stops at the border?

Surely, we should be creating jobs today, particularly since, as economic experts the Cuthberts point out (your report, 29 May), we could be heading for nothing more than token independence at most. If Scotland is a fairer society than the rest of the UK, surely this would entail losing entrepreneurial talent to greener pastures?

In my view, the Yes campaign message is little more than hot air. The more I listen, the more it annoys me and the more I realise rot is being spouted.

Ken Currie