Letters: Future governments may not be SNP

AS A veteran SNP member I write to endorse much of Alan Anderson’s critique of the common assumption that “it is inevitable that an independent Scotland would be governed by the SNP” (Letters, 28 March).

In fact, nothing could be further from the case, since one of the consequences of the achievement of independence would be that any subsequent SNP administration would no longer be able to take plausible refuge in blaming Westminster for any budgetary shortfalls for which it would then be solely accountable to the Scottish electorate.

However, Mr Anderson is on less sure ground in his claim that “it would be absurd for the SNP to continue to exist”. More than 75 years ago the SNP developed a comprehensive portfolio of social and economic policies which it would seek to pursue more effectively with the enhanced political – and especially fiscal powers – which independence would bring.

It would then be up to the party’s political opponents in the erstwhile Unionist parties to develop similar – or even better – policies in the hope that the electorate would eventually tire of the SNP and give them (or some of them) their chance. As the SNP’s constitutional experts envisage an independent Scotland as multi-party democracy whose parliament will continue to be elected by proportional representation, such an electoral outcome is by no means inconceivable.

IAN O BAYNE

Clarence Drive

Glasgow

Jennifer Dempsie (Perspective, 27 March) makes a number of assertions about border controls which neither she, nor anyone else, can guarantee.

First she assumes that Scotland, on declaring independence from an existing member state, will automatically become a member of the EU.

Then she declares that Scotland, like the Republic of Ireland, will be eligible to become part of the Common Travel Area within the UK while opting out of the Schengen agreement.

Both of these eventualities will, of course, depend on negotiations – first within the EU and secondly with the Westminster government – and cannot simply just be asserted.

But she then goes on to say “an independent Scotland will have responsibility for [its] own migration policy…tailored to address the economic challenges of demographic change and address skills shortages”.

This suggests that the Scottish immigration policy would differ from that of the rest of the UK, in which case Westminster would be bound to at least raise the question of monitoring those who enter Scotland with the intention (stated or otherwise) of moving to England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

There is not much point spending millions of pounds checking those entering Heathrow or Dover if those who do not qualify to live or work in the larger part of the UK can simply travel to Scotland and then wander over Carter Bar or catch a train from Central Station to King’s Cross!

But this raises the much wider point that so many advocating independence seem to have failed to grasp.

That is that, if Scotland decides to vote for independence, the government of the rest of the UK will have to address a wide range of issues, from defence to security, but, this time, put the interests of the citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland first.

There may well be a lot of common interest between the British nations but if Scotland becomes a “difficult” neighbour (opting out of Nato, proposing a common defence agreement but insisting on an “opt-out” for the conflicts it doesn’t approve of) then there may well be some unintended consequences.

Peter Lewis

Greenhill Place

Edinburgh

If the third question – devo-max – is added to the referendum ballot, it is bound to attract more votes than the first two – Yes or No – because it is the soft option, appealing to the majority who are not committed at any cost either to independence or to the status quo.

In that event, if the outcome is inevitable, why hold a referendum at all?

Instead of wasting millions of pounds and disrupting the nation’s affairs for years, why not simply get on with granting whatever additional powers Westminster and Holyrood can agree upon?

But whatever the outcome might be, there is no merit in having three questions which all point in the same direction, their only differences being the speed at which they would get there: (a) sprinting or (b) creeping towards it (since the status quo will always progress in the long-term towards the same end) or (c) a trot or a gallop according to what devo-max might induce.

In logic and in equity, if the Scottish Government will not accept the simple either/or poll, then we must square the circle with a fourth question: “Would you prefer abolition of the Scottish Parliament, while preserving all former sectors of independence and currently devolved matters, to be administered as heretofore by Scottish ministers through a reconstituted Scottish Office?”

VIVIAN LINACRE

Marshall Place

Perth

I was rather surprised to read of Michael Forsyth’s opposition to tuition fees for English students. As I am sure he is aware, free university education would be available as a right to all English students in an independent Scotland.

I wonder whether this noble engagement of his with the cause of social justice may just mark the beginnings of his return from the political wilderness.

Thomas Roberts

Wester Coates Gardens

Edinburgh