So those who favour Scotland’s independence and attempt to convey some of the realities of Westminster rule are branded as being driven by “anti-English prejudice” by Alexander McKay and of having a “myopic outlook” by Andrew Gray (Letters, 22 October).
No attempt is made to debate the issues raised of the relative benefits (or more precisely the lack of them) to Scotland of massive UK infrastructure spending on the Channel Tunnel and proposed HS2 projects.
Forgotten are the claims of increased numbers that would be visiting Scotland as a result of the London Olympics when in fact there was a decline in numbers during this event.
As Lesley Riddoch pointed out (Perspective, 21 October), there are many areas where the current constitutional arrangements have let down the people of Scotland, and these could readily be extended further to include the huge “underspends” in areas of Scottish funding, ranging from broadcasting to defence.
It may disappoint Messrs McKay and Gray to know there is no “anti-English” agenda behind my comments; I believe most people in England, particularly in the North, will benefit from a re-invigorated and vibrant Scotland.
Also, I am not a member of the SNP although clearly the former’s “paranoia” around the First Minister and his party has led him to another wrong conclusion.
Should there be any casualties arising from Scotland’s independence it is likely to be those among the “British elite”, including Scots, who have usurped their positions for personal favour and gain.
If that undemocratic anachronism that is the House of Lords was also to become a “casualty” I would not shed any tears (and I suspect many English people feel the same way). Given that it has taken Freedom of Information requests to reveal the truth of Scotland’s economic situation as detailed decades ago by McCrone and the negative impacts on some Scottish cities of the HS2 project, if there is any hidden agenda here it is not an “anti-English” one, except of course in the minds of those who struggle with facts that don’t fit their own subjective views of the world.
Thankfully, for the sake of future generations growing up in Scotland, there is increasing evidence in public debate that more and more people are attempting to take an objective look at what potentially lies ahead both inside and outside of the “Union”.
It is all very well for Matt Qvortrup (Perspective, 22 October) to praise Alex Salmond’s oratory and “vision” for Scotland but he is based south of the Border and will not have to live directly with the consequences of a Yes vote in next year’s independence referendum.
I note, too, that the prominent proponent of devolution and independence, Canon Kenyon Wright, has a residence in England.
Scots should beware of advice from those living beyond the borders of Scotland who do not have immediate experience of the contemporary challenges facing the country and who will not directly experience the consequences of a Yes vote.