I MUST be missing something ... did it not occur to David Cameron that holding the referendum just after the Euro Finals can only boost Brexit?
Either England will do well and give Johnny Foreigner a good hiding, or they will do badly and be humiliated, and in either case drunken rioting by their fans will breed anger and resentment all round.
I trust the Scottish Government’s contingency plan (they must have one?) for keeping us in Europe is being urgently dusted off.
David Roche
Coupar
ALTHOUGH we know the elderly are more likely to vote at elections and referendums, surely on this occasion any decision taken on the referendum will mostly affect the younger generations.
Therefore, surely it would only be fair if the over-65s either listened to what the younger voters wanted before voting or were even prevented from voting on this issue.
I accept this would include myself, but see it as making very good sense.
Tony Martin
Gullane
I READ Michael Fry’s piece with interest (The European neoliberal who would have voted for Scottish independence, The National, June 9). His eventual point being, not unreasonably, “unless we go for growth, there will never be an independent Scotland.” Based on his own figures, it would appear that those charged with creating growth (ie Scottish businesses), are under-performing. My own unfortunate experiences of Scottish businesses, since returning to Scotland some three years ago, would tend to confirm this. My every transaction to date has contained problems; every one of them avoidable.
Based on my experiences, I am forced to conclude that Scottish businesses have collectively lost their way. I am inclined to argue that this is the direct result of the economic vandalism visited upon the Scottish economy by all shades of government since the 1970s; the most egregious, of course, being that of the Tory Party under Thatcher.
In the 1960s, to my knowledge, at least one major manufacturing concern in the Glasgow area was able to pay its thousand-plus hourly paid staff, promptly and efficiently in cash, every Friday, while simultaneously exporting high-value engineering products around the globe. This, despite the fact that there were several different pay grades and bonus payments to be calculated. Needless to say, the operation was managed without recourse to computers; people were employed and trained to achieve the desired result. This operation simply couldn’t be achieved today, I believe, because we have lost too many, if not all of the skills needed to do it.
There are countless examples of the squandering of skills within the Scottish economy. My question to Mr Fry is, therefore: How exactly do you intend to “make the Scottish economy grow faster” when its skills base has been comprehensively butchered and its accumulated knowledge sacrificed at the altar of barmy economic theorising? I say, under present circumstances,that it’s an impossible task.
If you truly believe in “liberty”, as you claim, then surely you’ll concede that the Scottish economy can only grow when every last decision concerning its wellbeing is taken independently by independent minds in an independent country. Isn’t that what “liberty” is supposed to mean?
Barry O’Loan
Barrhead
THE meaninglessness of the term “neoliberalism” is well illustrated in the last sentence of Alan Hinnrichs’s letter (Letters, June 11), where he writes that “... economists who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.” There are indeed many economists whom Alan Hinnrichs would classify as “neoliberal” who believe that. But there other economists such as myself, to whom I think he would attach the same label, who believe more credit and more debt simply make the present situation worse.
David Simpson
Dunbar
IN 2014 in response to a question by Angus MacNeil saying that 68 percent of Scots wanted North Sea Oil to be controlled by Holyrood, David Cameron replied “ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer”.
This pretty much sums up the attitude this ex-Etoniain millionaire public schoolboy has to Scotland. According to ex-LibDem coalition minister David Laws, he didn’t care if Scotland became independent or not.
Cameron spent two years hammering home the message that North Sea oil wouldn’t sustain an independent Scotland. He remark on the Andrew Marr Show that independent Norway is doing well economically because of North Sea oil exposes him as a charlatan.
In 1975 the Tories buried the McCrone report, which showed an independent Scotland would have been as wealthy as Switzerland and be better off economically outside the UK. Instead, the Unionist parties squandered the money on tax giveaways for the very wealthy and underwriting the UK deficit.
David Cameron’s comments about Norway should be played and replayed. He has given the next independence referendum campaign all the ammunition it needs.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
PAUL Goodfellow of Shell stated that the company’s new investment between this year and 2018 would “introduce significant investments with our partners West of Shetland in the Clair and Schiehallion projects” (Shell reveals £2.8bn plans for North Sea fields, The National, June 11). We also learned in The National a few weeks ago that David Cameron had authorised exploration funding for oil/gas in the Rockall Basin, located in the Scottish North Atlantic sector.
The fact that further investment and exploratory activities are taking place in the Scottish North Sea and the Scottish Atlantic Margin does not suggest an industry in its death throes. The depleted global oil price is temporary and engineered by geopolitical forces. Do not conflate that with depleted Scottish oil and gas reserves. It is a well-known fact that commodity prices fluctuate.
What the UK Government did not do was to ensure a financial buffer against the vagaries of the commodity market for oil. They used Scottish oil and gas as a “cash cow” and now Scotland suffers from this Unionist vandalism.
Could someone please inform the Scottish people of the vast oil and gas potential in the Scottish Atlantic Margin, located off the west coast of Scotland? No more Unionist lies concerning one of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves.
William C McLaughlin
Biggar
Julian Assange claims David Cameron uses the EU a 'political cover for its decision-making'
John McDonnell hits out at David Cameron's Project Fear and warns Labour have 10 days to save the EU
Carolyn Leckie: Brexit will bring a bonfire of workers' rights, not the downfall of capitalism
George Kerevan: It’s far from game, set and match as Brexit tactics draw Labour supporters
FM: Scots could play key role in tipping vote to Remain
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here