The real nonsense of British perfection

The latest rant by Michael Kelly against “independence”, the SNP and Alex Salmond (Perspective, 18 August), appears to confirm that those in favour of maintaining the Union are struggling to present an objective and coherent case for maintaining a constitutional relationship that many logically view as being past its sell-by date.

Instead of trying to convince others of his peculiar view that Britain has achieved “perfect” institutions and constitutional conventions – an opinion seemingly at odds with his own words of condemnation of the English courts – it may be more productive for the Union cause if Mr Kelly admitted that the global economic environment has significantly changed since the heyday of the British Empire, and that with Britain joining the European Union the benefits to Scotland, and possibly to England, of the British Union are less evident to most than they once were.

In delivering to the SNP an overall majority of seats in the last election within a system designed to prevent such an event from occurring, the Scottish electorate demonstrated that it has politically matured and moved on by voting substantially on the basis of the merits of the arguments presented rather than perhaps according to misguided past allegiances, and is therefore no longer likely to be simply swayed by political scaremongering and emotive language.

Perhaps Mr Kelly and others seeking to undermine objective debate on Scotland’s constitutional future should also move on and acknowledge the fact that throughout history empires have come and gone, but what endures is the will of individual nations in countries large and small to take control of their own destinies, whether, perhaps temporarily, in one or more regional, political or economic unions, or in none at all!

Stan Grodynski

Longniddry

East Lothian

ALLAN Massie (Perspective, 17 August) thinks there is still an escape route on the way to independence. He thinks that most Scots are happy to be “British too”.

I can understand this almost desperate search for a cosy relationship which will allow Scots to avoid taking responsibility for their own future.

The trouble is that being “British too” for Scots will not be the same as “British too” for Ulster Unionists, and certainly not the same as the phrase will mean for the vast majority of English.

Scots who cling to this “British too” illusion will either be ignored by the rest of the UK or regarded as subsidy-junkies who are only in it for what they can get out of it.

Surely it is up to the Scottish people to open a new sense of Britishness where the various national identities can develop their own sense of independence and yet co-operate together as partners sharing the same island group on the edge of Europe.

That kind of Britishness could be an enormous catalyst for change, not just for the British Isles but also to inject some vitality into the European Union which has been flagging a bit in recent time, albeit that Europe still offers the best hope in the global strategy when India, China, Brazil, USA and others are all facing gigantic socio-political problems which they have not even started to come to grips with.

George Leslie

North Glassock

Fenwick

If IT is true, as in Robert Dunn’s letter (18 August) that the British parliament repealed part of the 1707 Act of Union in 1906 (removing the guarantee of a Scottish Mint), then perhaps it could save a lot of trouble, debate and expense by repealing the whole thing now.

David Stevenson

Blacket Place

Edinburgh