Saying ‘no thanks’ to Yes campaign

Who’s writing the headlines in The Scotsman these days? As Andrew Whitaker’s report (11 June) makes clear, I have not “snubbed” the campaign for Scottish independence.

I have explained my reasons for not formally joining the Scotland Yes campaign to some of those mentioned in the article and to other SNP members.

I can appreciate the inconvenience of there being no bitterness between the SNP and me over this, but my reasons are so mundane as to make it doubly difficult for your headline writers to conjure up a shock, horror headline, so “snub” it had to be.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

For my own part, I am satisfied that Andrew Whitaker’s report is a fair representation of my conversation with him. One remark, though, that went unrecorded was that concerning the time between now, and the likely date of the referendum.

As I have discussed with SNP members, drawing on the experience of the 1979 Assembly Campaign, and having the luxury of two and a half years to embed a widespread understanding of independence, I believe an attempt should have been made, in advance of any partisan campaigns, to explain the options open to voters on the “big” questions, defence, Europe, pensions etc, in as neutral a fashion as possible. I offered to get this going.

Although I’m convinced of the argument for independence, people who are not, or who have not yet decided, know where I’m coming from and can judge whether I’m being fair.

I shall urge Patrick Harvie and the impressive Green ex-MSPs, etc, to find a way of working with the SNP, and although pipers usually call the tunes, I shall encourage the SNP to take requests from the smaller parties and individuals. Some snub.

Margo MacDonald

Independent MSP for Lothian

Holyrood

Edinburgh

Joyce McMillan (Perspective, 8 June) appears to complain that Labour is opposed to the devo-max question being asked at the referendum.

While there may be other considerations, is it not reasonable to gauge the consequences of the Scotland Act before debating more change?

The Calman Report was based on corporation tax receipts when two outrageously successful banks had their headquarters in Scotland. Since then so much has changed, and receipts from this tax will be much less than forecast.

Most of us are interested in fiscal devolution as a means of paying less tax, not more. Or of course enjoying better, not worse, public services.

Hugh Mackay

Blacket Place

Edinburgh

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In his letter (9 June) Alex Orr writes that “it is simply incorrect to argue… that somehow the Scottish Saltire would have to be extracted from [the Union Flag]”, after independence.

It is conceivable that, if Scotland votes for separation, the monarch might continue to fly a Union Flag, provided the SNP can keep its republican faction in check and retain future kings and queens as head of state.

But what would be the heraldic logic in, say, the Houses of Parliament flying a Union Flag that incorporates a Saltire when Scotland has voted to absent itself from that very institution?

The fact is that the Union Flag will be severely compromised throughout the British Isles – and the wider world. At present, by my count, 16 Commonwealth countries feature the Union Flag in their own national flags.

Surely if the Union Flag is weakened within Britain, republicans in those countries will seize the opportunity to push for new flags (Australian republicans have long campaigned for the Southern Cross) leading to a possible loosening of ties within the Commonwealth.

I am not sure the Queen, or her successors, would regard this as a positive development, and Alex Salmond might find he gets a frostier reception at Holyrood Palace or Balmoral in the future than he appears to have been getting recently.

Peter Lewis

Greenhill Place

Edinburgh

Alexander McKay (Letters, 9 June) uses the phrase “broken off Scotland”, a new pejorative in this context.

Could I suggest that the British in Scotland could use words such as dismembered, isolated, sundered, segregated, smashed, ruptured, destroyed, fractured or shattered? There are several phrases that spring to mind also. I will leave the loyal North British to do their homework on these.

R Mill Irving

Station Road

Gifford, East Lothian

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Alexander McKay’s letter mirrored my own views precisely. It is clear that claim and counter-claim by each side in this debate will not bring any enlightenment and indeed will generate more heat than light.

Supporters of both sides of the argument will believe what suits them without any independent, informed facts to substantiate their beliefs.

This is an issue far too serious to be decided on the basis of uninformed partisanship. The positions regarding EU membership, finance, defence, Nato, share of national debt, oil, shape of the Scottish civil service and so on, and the costs associated with these and other aspects, must be clearly presented to the voters to enable us to make an informed choice.

While there is still time, I believe an independent committee of experts in each of the above aspects should be set up to examine, and cost, the implications of independence in their specialist field.

A timetable should be established for them to come forward with their findings so that the voters have time to consider all the issues well before the date of the referendum. This is the way that business would examine such a wide-ranging restructuring operation.

Donald Lewis

Beech Hill

Gifford, East Lothian