Letter: Scotland's Oil was not a selfish boast

Did the UK Government ever debate sharing the benefits of North Sea Oil with their fellow citizens of the European Union? Did they for one moment consider handing it over to the poor of Africa (whose need is manifestly greater than ours)?

No, those accusing the Scots of greed always envisaged London controlling the goodies and generosity stopping at the English Channel. No one looked abroad (for example to Canada) to discover whether it might be the norm in developed countries for an area or region possessing assets to reap the benefits thereof.

What Scottish Nationalism has always been up against in laying claim to North Sea Oil is not some altruistic sense of fair play. It's British Nationalism at its most arrogant, rapacious and (as we discovered with the publication of the McCrone Report) mendacious.

The UK Government grabbed control of all the Scottish Oil and is still spending it on British Nationalist priorities such as nuclear weaponry and jingoistic, illegal wars.

For an example of how North Sea Oil can transform the standard of living in a country whose government is free from delusions of grandeur look no further than Norway.

Mary McCabe, Glasgow

The article by Kenny Farquharson was very thought provoking and true in many respects; in particular his view that it would be wrong to appeal to Scots' greed in times of hardship. We would be embarrassed to ask for more than our fair share.

I don't agree, however, with the assumption that the slogan "It's Scotland's Oil" did work as well as expected in the 1970s; I believe this was due to the same egalitarian principles of the fairness of sharing our good fortune. Unfortunately these principles were not reciprocated by Mrs Thatcher and her successors at Westminster; England accepted this not as generosity but as their natural right and not with any gratitude.

Jim Stamper, Rutherglen

Kenny Farquharson tells us the SNP "underestimate the voters' intelligence". Perhaps newspaper columnists and reporters too should heed Mr Farquharson's remark. Jim Sillars' reply to his "What about working-class families in Wallsend and Wandsworth?", in terms of Mr Sillars' socialist and nationalist beliefs, "wasn't enough" for Mr Farquharson.

What an appropriate question. I wonder how Londoners and Geordies would feel if some foreign country appropriated the "City of London" assets or the north-east of England's share of the North Sea? How the people of Wallsend or Wandsworth would feel if they had nuclear submarines in adjacent rivers without a by your leave? The answer is clear – they wouldn't allow it, like the people of Plymouth who recently demonstrated against nuclear hulks in their harbour. In the pursuit of socialism they will be moved to Rosyth.

Mr Farquharson has hopefully been sickened by Labour's lack of socialism, but that does not permit him to imply that the Nationalists wanted to "extort – a bigger share for us here in Scotland". Mr Farquharson may find that all "the nations and regions" will be attempting the same manoeuvre. The majority of North Sea Oil was removed from Scottish control by the overriding of the 1968 Continental Shelf Order in 1975. In this context Mr Farquharson's use of the pejorative "extort" is hilarious.

Mr Salmond has, of course, every right to agitate for the Barnett consequentials currently unpaid by Westminster – all of course in pursuit of socialism and social justice.

Scots voted as a protest against the Tories and out of misguided loyalty to Brown – the SNP are still well in the game as we will see next year. It's Labour's game that "is a bogey".

Bill McLean, Dunfermline