Games will not influence referendum

I have been waiting for someone to play the 
“Scotland’s Commonwealth Games performance card” as a reason for voting Yes. My money would have been on Lesley Riddoch and, bless her, she didn’t disappoint (Perspective, 28 July).

What shallow people she must take us for if she thinks that a sporting event will give anyone “a lift in … the referendum race” – her unstated but obvious hope being that it will persuade more into the Yes camp.

If she wants to encourage informed decision making, rather than this chip-on-the-shoulder, pseudo-Braveheart, “wha’s like us?” nonsense, she should be focusing on getting answers to the 
truly important questions such as what alternatives would we have when the mythical currency union is refused, how would we cope with losing the EU opt-outs secured by rUK, would we have an elected revising chamber and how will we replace the many employers who will relocate?

There are many, many more vital matters that are being completely ignored by the Nationalists.

These are Games, Ms Riddoch, nothing more, nothing less. They will soon be consigned to the memory.

However, in the light of a Yes vote, we would have to live with the consequences – most likely disastrous, in my view – forever.

David K Allan

Haddington

East Lothian

Hugh White (Letters, 25 July) claims that the Commonwealth Games highlight the case for independence. His perspective on the British Empire, however, is viewed through a somewhat distorting lens.

Scotland is described as a “colony” of the British Empire. Apart from being self-evidently false, this would seem to be an attempt to ascribe all responsibility for the creation of the British Empire to England.

However, many of the 71 countries of the Commonwealth were established as colonies after the Treaty of Union.

Is Mr White suggesting that Scots and Scotland, unlike the English imperialists, played no part in the establishment and maintenance of the British Empire?

Is it not also somewhat ironic to Mr White’s case that a significant factor leading to the Treaty of Union was the failure of the Darien scheme – which was, of course, an attempt supported by the then Scottish Government to establish an overseas colony.

Mr White’s case is a poor attempt to exclude Scotland from any potential association with imperialism.

He goes on to equate independence with “freedom” – presumably from what he calls “imperial London rule”.

Again it is somewhat ironic that in 42 of the 71 former colonies some citizens enjoy less freedom in their personal lives than they would if they were still under the dreaded rule of London –though, of course, I am not for a moment suggesting that they would wish to turn the clock back.

I, for one, do not feel that my freedom is in any way compromised by continuing to be a part of the United Kingdom.

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh