A QUESTION often asked is what an independent Scotland would look like, when it is in fact more appropriate to think of what it would not look like. The model facing Scotland is the status quo, which is not about to morph voluntarily or otherwise into any form appropriate to the legitimate wishes of Scottish people which have been categorically stated and voted for, democratically, in the last Scottish election. The Prime Minister can be in no doubt whatsoever on that point and her only answer to a referendum request is an irrational “No”.

It is increasingly obvious that the phrase beloved by Westminster, “our precious union”, needs rational scrutiny. The Brexit vote of June 2016, and its aftermath, underline how notional the concept now is.

The “nation” is now in two distinct camps and no amount of bullying or political chicanery by Westminster will alter that fact. Listening to the recent debates suggests a third “State” exists, that which is in neither London or the south-east of England. Those divisions are the direct result of Tory-inspired political policies. The stubborn refusal of such recognition by successive Governments will reap and deserve its own reward.

Is it a precious union that can tolerate rising incidence of knife crime, of rising suicides, of rising drug-related problems, of food banks, an unaffordable health service, a punitive benefits system exacerbated by a bedroom tax, poverty even among those in employment, increasing child poverty, inability to care for the elderly and guarantee their pensions, an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, insufficient police and armed services numbers, increasing examples of racist and xenophobic behaviour even among those “in power”? Is it a precious union which is dominated by an Establishment influenced exclusively in preserving its own power base or aspiring to do so, this to the ignored disadvantage of at least half of its population? Is it a precious union which cannot even abide by a democratic decision and give effect to it? Is it a precious union which presides over an increasing level of personal and national debt, just to survive? Is it a precious union that would tolerate providing a mother help for a third child only if she could prove absolutely that she had been raped? The answers are self-evident.

The advocates of independence are adamant that the foregoing will not feature in a future Scotland, but equally that it will take time to achieve that result. Rome was not built in a day, nor was the present Union! The necessary time will be decided by negotiation and by steady, careful steps needed to unpick and replace the policies inflicted on the country by Westminster.

It is recognised now, especially since June 2016, that Scotland will prosper only by removing its domination by an uncaring Establishment. It is equally to be recognised that in the future independence decision process, a vote for the permanence of the “precious union” will be a vote for continuation of the unwelcome features already described. Is that the legacy which supporters of the Union wish to leave for their children and grandchildren? There is a brighter, better future for Scotland, but it will need to be won. It will not be the gift of Westminster.
J Hamilton
Bearsden

I write in support of the excellent point made by Ian Stewart (Letters, March 14) on presenting our plans for currency post-independence.

He is right to say “keep it simple and don’t be a hostage to fortune second time round”. After all, it should be remembered that although the SNP will be the party political driving force for independence, it will be the first independent government dealing with the currency issue and that might well be a coalition of one or more parties.

I well remember while campaigning in Broadford for the 2014 referendum, being told by an elderly resident that she could not vote for independence because David Cameron sent her old-age pension every Friday, to her personally, and she could not afford to lose her pension!

In spite of trying to explain it was a computer and not the PM, it is obviously important to some that the pound is the currency on the day before independence and on the day after. But we will have our own currency as soon as possible in the duration of the first Parliament.

I like what he says about the benefit of the wealth we have in Scotland’s oil and gas resources to support our economy through the period of the first Scottish Parliament and beyond. A wealth and income the mainstream media London dailies note will hold up the value of the GBP in the event a no-deal Brexit in the UK! We should never play it down, as it is going to be valuable for years to come.
Gavin Scott Moncrieff
Isle of Eigg