Murdoch keeps his eye on TV profits

As your report points out, his papers do not have a majority readership in Scotland. On the other hand, he gets a significant amount of revenue from his TV interests around the world.

If the Scottish Government decided not to continue with the licence fee after independence, the BBC would be in a difficult position.

It would still make programmes, but its presence in Scotland would be negligible. Perhaps Rupert, who seems always to have put profit before politics, perceives a chance to develop a new market. Could the new slogan be “It was Sky and Fox News wot won it”?

Bruce D Skivington

Strath

Gairloch, Wester Ross

The Braveheart syndrome can be offset by referring to the rather high number of battles over the centuries here and overseas in which Scottish forces have fought to counterbalance the “English” and their influence.

Flodden, Dunbar, Killiecrankie and Dunkeld ought to take their place in the timeline, and the Darien Venture, which could be regarded as a battle too – against inadequate finance, inadequate provisioning, malnutrition and disease. One might add Baugé, a victory during the Hundred Years War on French soil marred by subsequent defeats such as Verneuil.

Being selective about our history as a separate nation and within the Unions of Crowns and Parliaments is not helpful to an objective approach to the referendum, and The Bruce himself had his flaws!

Joe Darby

Cullicudden

Dingwall

The view of Romano Prodi as quoted by Labour MEP David Martin (Letters, 22 February) has nothing to do with the case. What is notable, however, is that in David Martin’s opinion the position of an independent Scotland within Europe would be that of “a newly independent region within a member state”.

The reality is that the member state – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – would no longer exist.

The question addressed by Romano Prodi concerned the secession of a region from a member state, which is manifestly not the position of an independent Scotland.

The dissolution of the 1707 Union that created the UK will result in the formation of two successor states, namely Scotland and England (with Wales and Northern Ireland, both of which will inherit the treaty obligations and opt-outs of the former UK).

It is sad to note that a Scottish member of the European Parliament will be arguing for England to be the member state and for Scotland to be expelled. How “anti-Scottish” is that?

(REV) ARCHIE BLACK

Elm Park

Inverness

I am surprised that some of your correspondents cannot see the necessity for border controls should Scotland secede from the UK.

England would have no control over who entered an independent Scotland by air or sea, so if the Scotland/England border was left open, then they might as well scrap the UK Border Agency altogether. Is that likely to happen?

WALTER J ALLAN

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

Perhaps Alex Neil (Platform, 22 February) didn’t read my article on “oil funds” (21 February) to the end.

But to set the record straight, the case for them is by no means proven, because it implies that governments are better at investing for the future than individuals. Now that’s a pretty hard sell, given our recent experience. But what is not in doubt is that the Scottish Government receives extra funds roughly equivalent to the revenue from North Sea oil. You can’t spend this twice.

Successive Holyrood administrations have chosen to spend it on the public sector. Fair enough, that’s democracy. But to pretend that this is some kind of magic cooking pot that can be spent both on public sector workers and invested in long-term assets is disingenuous.

Tom Miers

Kelso

With the spotlight on the forthcoming referendum and the dire consequence forecast for voting Yes for the dissolution, is it not the case that in 1905 Norway severed its union with Sweden?

It would be interesting for some pollster to ask Norwegians if they regret the parting and whether they have suffered as a result.

Denis Burn

Denseat Court

Aberdeen