Letters: Why should Unionists dictate the indyref timetable?

First, our economy is already being damaged by business decisions having to be made now – for example, to decide to invest outwith Scotland and the rest of the UK, or to move premises from these islands to the EU countries.

Perhaps even worse is the shift of economic assets to England from Scotland – moves made by Westminster decisions as well as by private businesses. England and Westminster will not do Scotland any favours – why would they? The frigates for the Clyde yards to build (not) is just one example.

Second, there never is a moment at which the result of a vote is known or guaranteed beforehand. Waiting and waiting for that moment just gives time for more and more damage to be inflicted on Scotland. Damage in the psychological sense by the lies poured out by Unionist politicians and their England-based parties, abetted by the press, BBC and other TV companies. And damage in ways that we cannot see – words in the ears of decision-makers.

Look at the harm being done to our society – the poor, the disabled, settled families who can receive letters from the Home Office telling them to leave Scotland and “go back where you came from”. The poor souls in Dungavel who our MPs and MSPs are not even allowed by the Home Office to visit. And to all of us by the budgetary constraints which affect every single aspect of our country and our lives.

I cannot understand why we let the Unionists dictate the timetable. The damage done is already clear to see. We do not need any more evidence.

The referendum date should be announced now and it should be this year. Do not give the Unionists any more time to hurt us. The role of the Scottish Government is to protect Scotland – that is their duty. The only way is to become our own fully self-governing country again.

I believe that this referendum will produce a Yes decision. But the dangers in delaying asking the question far outweigh the chance of not gaining the votes needed.

Sarah Mackenzie
Ardindrean

READ MORE: This is why the window to hold indyref2 opens AFTER Brexit​

I USED to have great faith in Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s sound common sense and financial acumen as he made the case for independence in the 2014 campaign. Now he seems to to have changed sides and is dragging out the old Project Fear arguments against independence. He says: “If the plan is to use sterling unofficially (for a few years at least) then we can’t actually stay in EU.”

Has he forgotten the Project Fear threat that an independent Scotland would have to use the euro? That was disproved as there is no compulsion to do so. Although its adoption by member states is encouraged, there are nine member countries that do not use the euro and before joining the eurozone, a state must spend two years in the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

Technically Scotland or any other country could use sterling. Worldwide 78 countries use sterling.

He then goes on to repeat the old Unionist claim that if the Scottish pound, or whatever currency, rose above the English pound, “our largest trading partner will not be able to afford to buy anything from us and our food and whisky and oil exports will fall dramatically.”

England is only presented by the Unionists and their media as being “our largest trading partner” by the bookkeeping sleight of hand that credits Scotch whisky and Harris Tweed as English exports because the goods leave the UK via English ports and airports and companies have their headquarters registered in England. It is estimated that 80% of Scotland’s exports to England are actually goods in transit to destinations in Europe and further afield. Europe is a much larger market for us and much better prospect as a future trading partner.

Murray Dunan
Auchterarder

I WITNESSED the undignified stramash on Twitter about the showing of Braveheart before the Hope Over Fear independence rally in George Square this Saturday, So Jack O’Neil’s letter in Thursday’s National came as no surprise.

Jack says that the showing of the film is playing to our critics by “signalling to people that the Unionist smears and stereotypes of independence supporters have been right all along”.

I dislike the film intensely, largely because it glorifies an unprincipled psychopathic thug who slaughtered innocent people for personal gain (not that Hollywood will ever tell you that part of the story). But we have to accept as a movement that ours is a broad church, which contains people who think differently from us. Some people value what Wallace did in very different times, and some people (believe it or not) still like Mel Gibson.

It’s a single showing of a heavily edited version of the film, on the screen to fill the time as people gather. It isn’t being beamed into Unionist homes, it isn’t being made compulsory, and if past experience of such gatherings is anything to go by the film will be inaudible and difficult to see, and that’s if the screens actually work.

Everyone just needs to chillax (as the youngsters probably stopped saying 20 years ago). We are all united, regardless of individual preference, taste or predilection, and we are each entitled to our own vision of what Scotland can become. There will always be people who like Braveheart and the message it brings, and there will be those who want to move on to something that isn’t weighed down by the injustices of history.

We all deserve the right to express our concerns and what motivates us. For every Unionist confirmed in their view by the showing of a silly film, there may be a potential indy supporter who just thinks it’s a braw wee film and comes along to see what the fuss is about.

I think the people of Scotland are too canny to be swayed so easily by such trivia (regardless of any stramash on social media).

Stewart Robinson
Musselburgh

READ MORE: Letters: Braveheart screening undermines our efforts​