Moral to keep UK

He claims it would be the moral duty of SNP MPs, in certain situations, to try to prevent the infliction of pain and misery upon “the poor in England”.

I seem to recall during the referendum the argument being put forward that if Scotland were to become independent then “England” would be at the mercy of the Tories because Labour, without the significant number of seats it expects to gain in Scotland, might struggle to gain a majority.

I also seem to recall that argument being roundly rejected by supporters of independence.

One thing is sure. If Scotland were to become independent then SNP votes would certainly have no part to play in the moral scenario described by Mr Sillars. If Mr Sillars’ reasoning is followed to its logical conclusion then is it not the moral duty of all Scots to remain within the Union rather than abandon not only the “poor in England” but of the whole  of the rest of the UK to the mercy of any “Westminster” government?

If the SNP are to have their hands on the moral tiller for the whole of the UK then would it not be morally derelict to let go?

(Incidentally, I apologise if my correspondence displeases Mike Provan (Letters, 20 December). I do try – as I am sure Mr Turner does – to avoid the personal and stick to the issues. Evidently I need to try harder.)

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh

Claims of morality and principle figure highly in Jim Sillars’ letter on future SNP voting policy on English issues.

His letter, laden with emotive language (“pain and misery on the poor of England”) is rather selective.

For example, what of the morality of racking up debt and making future generations pay for our profligacy?

That is also an issue of morality and principle which needs to be weighed alongside the issues which Mr Sillars chooses to select in his attempt to persuade us he occupies the moral high ground.

(Cllr) Cameron Rose

City Chambers

Edinburgh