Where we clearly disagree is that the Labour Party, or other unionist parties, can be relied upon to radically reform representation at Westminster in spite of the repeated failures of the past which would appear to substantially undermine his argument that truly meaningful reform can be achieved from within.
Cash for peerages and expenses reports are the tip of the iceberg of endemic corruption in an elitist establishment which still fails to thoroughly investigate decades of reported abuse while pertinent documents are shredded.
Neither politicians nor bankers have been held to account for massive betrayals of trust in a political system that is no longer fit for purpose irrespective of any tinkering those sincere in wishing to improve democracy in this country might realistically achieve.
Added to this assessment is the fact that the human resources and wealth of these islands will continue to be disproportionately and irrationally drawn/driven into the South-east of England until Scotland becomes independent or until a workable federalist model is implemented.
The “bizarre” comments by David K Allan (Letters, 2 January), which address none of the fundamental concerns raised in my previous letter, perhaps support the conclusion that only independence will deliver government that broadly represents the aspirations of the people of Scotland.
Stan Grodynski (Letters, 1 January) appears to have hit a raw nerve by using the term “nationalist” in relation to those on the No side of our recent referendum.
Many who voted Yes would summarise their position by saying “I’m not a Scottish nationalist, but…” and Colin Hamilton’s response to Mr Grodynski (Letters, 2 January) hints of a No voter’s equivalent: “I’m not a British nationalist, but…”
The reality, of course, is that the referendum gave us a choice between our two nationalities. Scotland and the UK are both generally accepted to be nations; the decision centred on which of those nations we wanted to be our nation state. As such, both options were as “nationalistic” (or not) as the other.
Yet many correspondents to these pages, and some of this newspaper’s columnists, still insist on referring to people who prefer the Scottish version of sovereignty to the British version as “nationalists” or “separatists”.
I understand Mr Hamilton’s discomfort at a label that he might not choose for himself, but would suggest that the same respect be shown to those on both sides of this debate.
A New Year’s resolution for us all might be to choose such labels carefully.
As a Scot now living in Dublin, I would like to endorse David Allan’s (Letters, 2 January) comments, particularly his penultimate paragraph.
The voting process was cynical in the extreme. I was not allowed a vote, but my Dublin GP’s son, who is an Irish medical student at Glasgow University, was allowed a vote. This suggests to me that the SNP were terrified of the more experienced ex-patriate voters than the young inexperienced overseas and domestic voters. That is not democracy.
Ardagh Close, Blackrock
I write in support of David K Allan and Colin Hamilton, whose letters (2 January) comprehensively demolish the nonsense expounded in Stan Grodynski’s letter (1 January).
While many readers will applaud Messrs Allan and Hamilton’s cogent points, unfortunately, Mr Grodynski will be quite unabashed, because he will not read properly, or assimilate the points so compellingly made against him by any critical correspondent.
As one of the correspondents berated by Mr Grodynski, my point, above, is exemplified by his attack on my letter (24 December). The view he ascribed to me was that “those who have written in support of Scotland’s independence should be limited to 150 words”.
In fact, my message simply stated that long-winded letters by Mr Grodynski and his like, exceeding about 150 words, are unlikely to be read by many.
I made no specific mention of “supporters of Scottish independence”, nor did I suggest that letters from those supporters, or indeed anyone else, should be limited to 150 words.
Easter Park Drive