STEPHEN Noon’s half-hearted attempt (Scrutiny, 14 July) to persuade us that Labour, and doubtless other parties as well, would be invigorated after independence has one serious flaw.
All the many politicians that he lists as assets to a future independent Scotland are clear that we would be better not going there in the first place. The Labour for Independence movement is not significant. We know this because the Labour Party in Scotland had a leadership campaign 18 months ago – no candidate came forward to argue that we should be independent, and the suggestion did not appear in the issues being debated. Efforts to suggest that a small fringe group are more significant than they are will come to nothing.
Can I ask why Scotland on Sunday persists in making available a regular column (Scrutiny) for pro-independence campaigners, but not one for pro-Union campaigners? We are continually subjected to poorly written articles such as the one listed above. Surely it would be better if campaigners competed for space based on the quality of the arguments they were putting forward, and that neither side received privileged coverage such as this? Many of your other columnists, while they may take a certain stance on independence, are capable of covering a much wider range of topical issues, and often do. This particular column consistently disappoints, and rarely adds anything to the debate. I think you should review what it is actually achieving, and for who.
Victor Clements, Aberfeldy