Risks of rift

The SNP’s route to independence (your report, 24 October) is a proposal of high risk that needs careful investigation, because once taken it cannot be reversed.

In times of global turmoil, what is needed is safety; better to be part of a great liner controlling the direction of movement, as Scots prime ministers have done in the past, than awash in a dinghy.

There is much romantic twaddle that underpins separation attitudes, in part due to the rewriting of history by Mel Gibson. But the reality will be more like Bannockburn.

Robert the Bruce and wealthy associates gained enormous power as well as wealth from that battle while for the ordinary Scots peasant, life remained mired in poverty; powerless, nasty, brutish and short. The political class on separation will gain the exhilaration of greater power and status if not wealth.

Mr Salmond said in his speech that Scotland’s voice should be heard in Europe; I think he meant his voice, not the rest of us.

Nationalism is based on two things: an in-group, the Scots in this case, and an out-group, the English. Whether either can be defined I doubt, but Scottish Nationalism thrives on a chip on the shoulder about the English. It is the narrowness of the Nationalist vision that is so depressing.

Expect silver-tongued promises of a better tomorrow for the masses. John Swinney has already made them.

Each individual should ask themselves in a hard-headed fashion what will be the actual costs and benefits of separation to them.

I’m a scientist and 62 of us made the point in 2007 about the very negative effect of separation on Scotland’s scientific base. Separation will inevitably lead to a migration of valuable scientific talent to greater benefit elsewhere, mainly England.

(Prof) Anthony Trewavas

Croft Street

Penicuik