Readers' Letters: People might like Independence but don't see case for it

If someone stopped me in the street and asked if I would like to be able to pilot a small aircraft, I would unhesitatingly say “Yes”. However, it is not an ambition which is high on my list of priorities and I know that to achieve it would take significant personal and financial commitment. Much as I like the idea, it is not something I am going to do.

Liking the idea of an independent Scotland and being ready to suffer financially for it are two different things, says reader (Picture: Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

Robert Farquharson (Letters, 2 March) makes the common mistake of assuming that, because the number of people who answer “Yes” to the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?” holds steady at around 50 per cent, there is an underlying strength of opinion towards seceding from the United Kingdom. I am confident this is not the case for the following reasons.

A recent survey ranked issues individual voters selected which would determine how they vote. Each participant was able to list up to three issues. Independence was ranked seventh with only 16 per cent of voters selecting it; not surprisingly, the economy and healthcare topped the list. Even among SNP voters independence came third, with fewer than 30 per cent selecting it; in contrast, 67 per cent selected the economy and 66 per cent the NHS.

Research has also demonstrated that, while people are frequently positive about independence as a concept, when asked if they would still be in favour if it resulted in an adverse economic impact, support drops very significantly. Voters are aware that, with no substantial economic case having been made to support secession, the level of risk associated with it is high.

Given the many important issues that we all currently face, it is clear that those who say “now is not the time” for another constitutional debate and referendum reflect the reality of public opinion.

George Rennie, Inverness

Nice one, George

I sent a message of support to George Galloway for his campaign in Rochdale and I’m delighted he won his big victory. I’ve known George for many years and while we haven’t always agreed on everything I respect his consistent commitment against war and his longstanding support for the Palestinian people.

I’m also delighted he inflicted a major defeat on Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party. I was elected a Labour MEP in 1994 and fell out with Tony Blair but I have to say Starmer’s Labour Party is even worse than Blair’s Labour. I suspect the Rochdale result spells trouble for Labour at the general election, a lot of Muslim voters are not going to support Labour over Gaza, likewise many young people on the left.

It could be that Starmer will need support from the SNP and Liberals to form a government. In that case the SNP must make it clear that any support from its MPs is contingent on the right of Scotland to decide its own future.

George Galloway has traditionally been a unionist but I hear he might be rethinking his position on independence, I hope that’s true and he can see that the best way to break up the British state is for Scotland to become independent. The Rochdale result has shown that elections can change things and let’s hope that spirit of change can take place in Scotland soon.

Hugh Kerr, (MEP 1994-99), Edinburgh

Talk about cheek!

George Galloway, newly elected MP for Rochdale, described Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak as “two cheeks of the same backside”. Presumably he and his party sit somewhere in the middle?

Alastair Carmichael, Tyninghame, East Lothian

Westminster waste

Almost daily we read letters castigating the Scottish Government for the purported waste of our hard-earned taxes, some citing spurious claims as evidence to support shutting down Holyrood. For every £1 supposedly wasted by Holyrood one could readily cite £100 wasted by Westminster, in effect costing Scottish taxpayers £10. The logical conclusion for those wishing to reduce the cost of Scotland’s governance is not to shut down Holyrood but for Scotland to reclaim its rightful independence and permanently withdraw all Scottish MPs from Westminster.

Only through independence can it be guaranteed that Scottish voices will be heard and that Scotland will attain governance that directly and proportionately represents the views of its people.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

No free lunch

Brian Wilson’s article on Holyrood finance was interesting (“SNP is wasting money, not being short-changed by Westminster”, Perspective, 2 March). It points up a flaw in the devolution settlement, ie, Holyrood is not responsible for raising what it spends, which leads to irresponsibility. In the latest SNP/Green Budget they have forgotten the old saying that: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” – someone somewhere is paying. Our leaders are like children in the sweetie shop, wanting to buy everything.

We have free this, free that, some of this on worthwhile things. To make themselves even more popular, we have had council tax freezes for years. This is wonderful, until you realise that councils have been forced to make cuts to make ends meet (one example being the proposed closure of Bo'ness Recreation Centre, a key community hub).

To make matters worse, if Holyrood finds itself short of cash it can then blame Westminster for not funding it properly, and make political capital out of this – outrageous!

William Ballantine, Bo'ness, West Lothian

Don’t say ‘coaching’

I hold no brief for the current Holyrood administration; far from it. However I'm afraid I have to disagree with Alexander Mackay (Letters, 2 March) and his condemnation of the “coaching” of civil servants and politicians.

The point of the Covid Inquiry is to discover what happened, how decisions were arrived at and from that what can be learned to better deal with any future similar occurrence. It is not supposed to be an opportunity to pillory the witnesses and score points.

To that end it is important that witnesses give their evidence clearly and confidently. For many lay people, being questioned by a clever lawyer is akin to being thrown to the wolves, where it becomes only too easy to become tied up in knots and give a confused account of events.

Therefore it is only sensible that witnesses are prepared for the questions they may be asked and shown how to provide the information required, clearly and precisely.

It is unfortunate that the use of the word “coaching” rather than “preparing” appears to be being used to imply that the witnesses are being taught how to lie.

Assuming we really do want to get to the heart of the matter, which surely is the least we owe to the relatives of those who died, then paying out of the public purse to ensure that witnesses are able to answer clearly and precisely is surely a wise investment.

Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews, Fife

Naive views

I read Marjorie Ellis Thompson’s letter “Don’t fight back” (2 March) several times with astonishment. I cannot believe that she disagrees vehemently with the Scotsman’s editorial, “Nuclear threats must not influence West policy” (1 March).

Incredibly, Ms Thompson seems to misunderstand completely the value of having a nuclear deterrent. It would seem, like fellow anti-nuke SNP supporters, she is happy for Vladimir Putin to do his worst without any response from the West and for him, after defeating Ukraine, to invade the Latvian states and Poland as a precursor to destroying all democratic government in the rest of Europe. The after-effects of a nuclear war are unimaginable. However, surely, meekly allowing a cruel, deluded murderous tyrant like Putin to impose totalitarian government all over Europe can hardly be acceptable even to Marjorie Ellis Thompson and the current anti-nuclear SNP/Green Scottish Government, unless they have Communist sympathies.

For anyone in an independent Scotland to imagine they can make a pact with Putin to put aside his nuclear weapons without accepting diabolical consequences is grossly naive and for the birds!

Sally Gordon-Walker, Edinburgh

Rocky road

The article in on Harry Young and his rocky map of Scotland (Scotsman, 1 March) calls to mind a wonderful exhibit displayed at one time in the Museum of Scotland in Chambers Street in Edinburgh.

On the floor of the lowest level there was a large-scale map of Scotland made up of rocks sent in by primary school children from all parts of the country. The stones were native to their homes, for example granite from Aberdeenshire, red sandstone from Caithness etc. The stones had been cut, fitted together like a gigantic jigsaw and finally polished. The effect was wonderful. As a volunteer guide in the museum at the time I found the map a most useful aid in starting a tour on Scottish history as I was able to point out the main features of our country. This fascinating exhibit lasted for some years before it was taken up and removed to some other place, I never discovered where. A pity.

Sandy Macpherson, Edinburgh

Porridge brains

The SNP, having last week decreed that porridge oats are bad for us, following mainstream and social media ridicule have now changed their minds. Every child in Scotland knows porridge for breakfast is a healthy choice. Goodness me, these people walk amongst us.

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.