DOUGLAS Turner (Letters, 14 August) was clearly uncomfortable with my letter which sets out Scotland’s dire fiscal situation (GERS) given the current oil price and our high spending regime – if we had voted for independence.
His complaint was not to dispute the facts but to ask why did I “reheat the question of oil revenues”?
Surely he must understand that as long as the Nationalists continue to ignore the result of the referendum and threaten to engineer an excuse to hold another one, those of us who believe Scotland’s best interests are served by remaining in the Union will continue to argue our case and clearly the economy is a crucial part of that internal debate.
He goes on to say that if we are such a “basket case” why do the rest of the UK wish to “hold on to us”?
There are many reasons, of course, but one which I favour is the concern expressed by Carl Bilt (the Swedish foreign minister) when he declared that Scottish independence would lead to the “Balkinisation of the British Isles” and would have more profound implications than people think with “unforeseen chain reactions”.
It is an opinion shared by other world leaders, including Barack Obama.
Finally, this equally proud Scot asked why are the arguments from people such as myself having a “zero effect” on the voting public.
Not so fast, would be my immediate response! Many of the people who voted SNP would still not vote for independence and it is only a matter of time before in-fighting breaks out between the many individual factions within the populist SNP.
This process may have already started by the recent founding of another independence party in Scotland – a new job for Alex Salmond, perhaps?
Murtle Den Road