Shortening long road to independence

WITH increased speculation about the timing of a referendum on independence, who is responsible for calling it and what it should actually ask (Eddie Barnes, Perspective, 9 November), it is worth recalling a proposal outlined in August 2007.

It was contained in a paper produced by the Scottish Government – Choosing Scotland’s Future – a National Conversation. It suggested that voters accept or reject this form of words: “I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.”

Acceptance of this would simply have confirmed an aspiration; it should go without saying that the outcome of those negotiations is something that should again be put before the voters in another poll. For the whole thing to have any meaning, one poll would be organised by Holyrood and the other by Westminster.

Why bother with all this, tempting voter fatigue, when civil servants on both sides of the Border could be working now, with due impartiality, on the actual terms of independence?

There is no argument that the independence which is sought is that which accepts the monarch as head of state.

The real points of controversy are over the share of the national debt, the European dimension, the military bases, taxation, pensions and citizenship.

These terms could be worked on, and agreed by officers.

Politicians would be ill-advised to amend them if they wanted the issue resolved quickly.

It could pave the way for Westminster to amend the Scotland Act and organise a binding referendum on the following proposal: “The terms of an independence settlement for Scotland have been outlined in Document XYZ. Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent state?”

This may be a tricky road, but for the sake of all our futures it should not be a long one.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court,

Glenrothes

I COULD only scream at the newspaper when I read of the newest supposed hurdle to Scotland’s independence (your report, 9 November).

Apparently it is unclear whether an independent Scotland would be admitted to the EU.

However, Scotland’s Unionists do not take umbrage at this supposed slight on their nation but instead use it is a stick to beat the SNP.

I can only ask, in this day and age, when you cannot move in Europe without tripping over an EU member, why would Scotland be a special case?

Oil, gas, fish, renewables? Behave. With Greece and others on their knees, we will be just the sort of financial powerhouse Europe will need. As even this speculative report notes: “It is likely Scotland would be a net contributor.” And as for the Unionists who cannot be bothered to talk their country up, or indeed stick up for their country, take my granny’s advice: “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.”

Shame on them.

Kevin Cordell

Nevis Place

Broughty Ferry, Dundee

YOU predict a big bill for Scotland if Scottish voters decide that Scotland should rejoin the world as a normal country.

No doubt this is just one of many predictions of doom to come. It is current SNP policy and expectation that an independent Scotland should remain within the European Union.

It seems most probable that, given Scottish resources, the EU will wish us to stay. But if difficulties are put in our way we could join Norway and others in the European Economic Area, which would have many of the same effects as being in the EU but would exclude us from the Euro and would allow us more freedom to protect our fisheries.

Maybe that would be a good idea.

David Stevenson

Blacket Place,

Edinburgh

ANOTHER day and yet another scaremongering Euromyth highlighting the fate that will befall an independent Scotland.

One of the most preposterous arguments peddled about an independent Scotland is that we would not continue to be members of the European Union. For a start, we are already an integral part of the EU – and as an independent state would be in exactly the same position as the rest of the UK as a successor state.

Legal and constitutional experts, including Eamonn Gallagher, a former director-general of the European Commission, and Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, a former president of the European Court of Justice, both confirmed that an independent Scotland would continue in EU membership.

The second myth is that if an independent Scotland had to apply for EU membership, it would be obliged to join the euro.

This is again not the case as it is entirely up to any new member state to decide whether or not it wishes to pursue a strategy leading to membership of the eurozone. A new member state has to have been in the EU exchange rate mechanism (ERM) for at least two years prior to joining the euro.

Joining the ERM is a voluntary arrangement and, therefore, membership of the euro cannot be forced on an unwilling state.

Post-independence Scotland would be an EU member and the SNP government would retain sterling as Scotland’s currency, as it is perfectly entitled to do so, until such a point as a referendum is held to decide on euro membership.

Alex Orr

Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh