Yes for EU benefits

Brian Monteith (Perspective, 17 March) states that that the UK is an “open market”. Surely when Scotland and rUK are both members of the EU there will be a much larger market, or is he confident that England is going to leave?

He claims the price of groceries is the same “in Wick as in Weybridge” but the price of petrol is certainly not.

He also says: “We would have more say in our existing currency union” (controlled entirely by Westminster) than in the EU. Is giving all our tax income and revenues to another administration and receiving a modicum back (the present Westminster system) less advantageous than keeping all our income except for contributions to Europe (the EU system)?

The question of EU membership is not Scotland’s; it lies with the EU. If it can find a way to accept the former East German state’s membership, surely it can accept an independent Scotland, a de facto member whose people have been citizens for 40 years (not subjects, as in the UK).

An independent Scotland would be much better off than as part of the UK. There would be 13 or 14 MEPs instead of five with the biggest constituencies in Europe; the present supports, which are the lowest in Europe, would go up; the €3 million support for food banks prevented by Westminster could be accepted; the agricultural benefits given to the UK specifically for Scottish hill farmers would not be shared with all UK farmers as has ­happened recently.

At present it is Westminster, whose priority is London, that speaks for Scotland in the EU. An independent Scotland would speak for herself on all matters, particularly those to do with ­fishing, farming, energy and coastal waters.

Susan FG Forde

Main Street

Scotlandwell, Kinross-shire