Realistic view would serve Nats better
Eric Falconer states in his latest letter that I acknowledge the difficulties that would result in the EU trying to expel the Scots. I did not acknowledge it would be the case, I said: “The assertion that an independent Scotland would not be expelled from the EU because the chaos from the unravelling of the 40-year-old EU union would be a nightmare ( is this scare mongering?) is surely an even stronger endorsement that the 300 year-old union within the UK should be retained”.
I was merely stating that if he used such an argument for retaining an EU union then it would apply even more so to retaining the UK union, which is much more entwined in the fabric of our everyday activities and everything we do.
I’m also afraid that Peter Heald was right, Mr Falconer did imply that oil from an independent Scotland was so critical to the EU they would not be expelled for fear of an embargo. I note he did not acknowledge my comments on the pretty low key impact of UK energy on the EU or respond how Independence would improve air travel as he stated in an earlier letter.
I am no expert on EU law so made no comment on Mr Falconer’s earlier assertions on the legal aspects of EU membership in my last letter. It now appears that he is no expert either, as he was only repeating the views of someone else in support of his Nationalist views.
Overall, the responses from Mr Falconer re-enforce my view, and that of many others, that the Nationalists make assertions using fairly loose information that supports their cause and ignore any facts and views, many from respected independent experts, that indicate an Independent Scotland may not find the going as easy as they make out.
Perhaps the Nationalists would get more support if they did acknowledge the difficulties in a real world, rather that saying an Independent Scotland will be Eutopia.
Raising ones head above the parapet
As a Yorkshireman making comments on the Independence debate, perhaps I may be treading on dangerous ground.
However, having lived here for 20 years, I thought it’s about time I raised my head above the parapet in offering some thoughts on the matter.
Experience has shown me that the people who shout the loudest often get heard but are not always right in what they say.
The views I have heard and read tend to be polarised. Those, often from the heart, tend to be in the Yes camp, the more thoughtful in the No camp.
I brought my family to the Scottish Borders because it was different but still had many of the assets associated with being part of a much larger United Kingdom. Any party that has National in its title has only one objective, it’s thinking and policies are all based around achieving self governance .
September 18 is not a general election where we vote a party in or out, if ‘Yes’, it is permanent, then Mr Salmond won’t be too concerned if he fails at a future Scottish general election, for it’s job done.
As for the Yorkshireman, well, we didn’t move to a foreign country and certainly wouldn’t want to live in one. Even if we moved back down to Yorkshire I have no doubt we would still hear Mr Salmond blaming the English for the problems being experienced in a Independent Scotland.
Yes vote is the best answer for Scotland
After huffing and puffing for near half a page, Mr Falconer (letters – January 23) declares himself to be bored with the question of Scotland and the EU and invites us instead to think about what kind of Scotland we would like to see develop.
I, for one, would like to see a Scotland that stopped being obsessed with the notion that for something to be done well it had to be done differently and got back to being a full contributor to and beneficiary from a vibrant United Kingdom, as it was in the past and as many individual Scots continue to be.