Separate systems

As we await with bated breath the forthcoming launch, by an oddly assorted cabal of politicians, of the campaign aimed at preventing Scotland from regaining its independence, no doubt we can expect to hear even more uses of the pejorative term “separatism”.

But separate from what, exactly? Of course, an independent Scotland would have international obligations, including those with its southern neighbour, but the country would be no more or less “separate” than, for example, Denmark, the Netherlands, or, for that matter, its erstwhile ally, France.

However, I suspect that the term “separatism” has already been overused in attempts to further frighten the fearties and faint-hearted, and that its increasing ineffectiveness will eventually render it useless as a scare tactic.

Keith Halley

Newbattle Abbey Crescent

Dalkeith, Midlothian

C Murphy (Letters, 9 June) raises an interesting issue, suggesting that in the event of Scottish independence “there will be no UK”.

The term “UK”’ is shorthand for “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, “Great Britain” being a geographical term denoting the island territories of the English, Scottish and Welsh nations.

Following Scottish independence England, Northern Ireland and Wales would remain united but the resulting state, if it wished to avoid describing itself as “The United Kingdom of Part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” it could become “The United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales”.

So C Murphy is wrong: there would be a “UK” remaining in the unfortunate event of Scottish independence.

I suspect your correspondent is ignoring the fact that in 1801 the Kingdom of Ireland joined with the Kingdom of Great Britain to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The rest, as they say, is history.

John Milne

Ardgowan Drive

Uddingston, Lanarkshire