What Scots are

Share this article
Have your say

Bill Jamieson’s “one crumb of comfort for unionists” is that “a majority of Scots remain opposed to independence” (Perspective, 16 July). I think not – this is the “Scottish author J K Rowling” nonsense.

If by “Scots” we mean Scottish-born, then a majority of these voted Yes in September, and that percentage will almost certainly have increased since then.

The vast majority of non-Scottish residents will be English-born and/or educated (somewhere between 10 and 14 per cent) and most of these will, unsurprisingly, have voted No.

A 5 per cent swing to Yes would have resulted in a different outcome.

This is, hopefully, the last twitch of the English tail wagging the dog, or would be if we introduced a residency requirement – ten years, say.

Most other countries would barely raise an eyebrow at this; few of us would expect a vote on a crucial constitutional issue if an expat in, say, France or Spain.

It cuts both ways, of course – I believe a majority of non-English migrants in Scotland voted Yes, but there is no danger of Scotland becoming “Polska-nised” or Bulgarianised (or of England becoming “Scotticised”, whatever racist Jockophobia is currently being spouted in Westminster).

I also enjoyed, in the same issue, Ashley Davies’s wry observation on farmers’ markets that “in an hour we did not hear a single Leith accent”.

The tide of Anglification of Scotland is turning, though, after centuries, and that is an entirely healthy trend which will defuse a great deal of the “anti-English” sentiment being trumpeted by sundry tabloids and the aforementioned braying MPs (with the pathetically transparent intention of trying to tarnish the SNP).

David Roche

Hill House

Coupar Angus

Back to the top of the page