A debt is owed to the Scottish people

Nicholas Tsagourias is right to raise the question of what will happen to Britain’s massive sovereign debt after independence in his article, “Sharing the debt burden” (Perspective, 7 June).

It can only be of benefit to all the peoples of the UK that negotiations on how the debt should be divided should be reasonable and credible.

Mr Tsagourias mentions a method of calculating the share of national debt on what he calls historical benefits.

Over the past 100 years we have seen massive emigration of the Scottish population, a large proportion of which was to other parts of the UK.

Thus a considerable proportion of the national debt which will have been spent on education, housing and welfare will have gone towards Scots who have moved to other parts of the UK where they have then made a considerable contribution to the economic wellbeing of that part of the UK.

If we look at population figures Scotland’s population has grown by about 11 per cent in the past 100 years while the UK’s population has grown by about 103 per cent.

If we look at Norway, a country which, like Scotland, has had a history of heavy emigration, its population over the past 100 years has grown by 104 per cent.

It is surely obvious that in terms of historical benefits Scotland has not had its proper share of the benefits that might have been expected to have arisen from the accumulation of the UK national debt.

Any attempt to share out the national debt and assets between Scotland and the rest of UK must take this into account.

George Leslie

North Glassock

Fenwick

How I long for the simple truth from the SNP and Alex Salmond.

How I long for him to answer a straightforward question about membership of the EU; about currency and interest rate control in a broken-off Scotland; or tell the truth about defence; or royalty (and how the legions of previously fervent anti-royalist SNP members loyally trot out to vote for retaining the Queen).

Instead of truth, we are given absurdly hopeful assertions at best and at worst occasionally downright misleading answers.

Do the Nationalists not realise that trying to be all things to all men results only in scorn?

Are they afraid to tell the truth and say it will be a long, hard road splitting up and being on our own but worth it in the end?

It is a pitiful sight to see Mr Salmond duck and dive on the questions that matter and resort to the old “Why do you try and do down Scotland?’’ when pertinent questions are asked.

I am afraid there is no Truth, no Principle, no Cause with Mr Salmond’s SNP that would not be ditched at the first opportunity, only a grubby and distasteful grasping for power and the trappings of office for their own sake.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh

The comment by Labour leader, Ed Miliband, that one could not be both Scottish and British post-independence (your report, 8 June), clearly demonstrates the need for the greater teaching of history in our schools.

Scottish independence would see the ending of the Treaty of Union, ratified by acts of parliaments by both Scottish and English Parliaments in 1707.

What would still remain, however, is the Union of the Crowns of 1603, and the unification of Scotland and England under one monarch through a personal union.

Indeed, in 1604 King James proclaimed himself as “King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland”.

With this being heralded more than a century before political unification, it therefore seems naïve to assume that one cannot call themselves both British and Scottish post-independence.

Likewise, the Union Flag was introduced in 1606 as the “British flag” or the “flag of Britain”.

On Scottish independence it would therefore remain as is and it is simply incorrect to argue, as some mischievously have, that somehow the Scottish Saltire would have to be extracted from it.

If those, such as Ed Milliband, are to enter the debate on Scottish independence they need to get their facts right and understand that the ending of the political union does not mean the ending of the social union. On independence one can quite legitimately be both Scottish, and British, should one so desire.

Alex Orr

Leamington Terrace

Edinburgh

Oh DEAR, poor Mr Miliband seems to have got himself into a muddle. Let’s see if I can make it clearer for him.

He says that “if they (Scots) leave the UK they they won’t be British any more”. Mr Miliband, if the Scots “leave” the UK there will be no UK!

C Murphy

West Calder

West Lothian

It was proper for the First Minister to pay tribute to the Queen on behalf of the people of Scotland. Yet was he the right person to do so?

He is, after all, the leader of a party hell-bent on breaking up the United Kingdom which she believes in and has served with dedication and love. To say nice things about her to her face while stabbing her in the back merits the comment, “Et tu, Brute”.

The concept of two nations living, working and loving together is dear not only to the Queen but to thousands of Brits (and that includes Scots) not only south of the Border but throughout the world where they have settled.

They view with sorrow what is going on today in Scotland. The First Minister should think again before he irrecoverably damages not only our own country but also the concept of a political unity throughout the world which we have witnessed for 300 years.

(Rev Canon) R A Grant

Bruntsfield Gardens

Edinburgh