LET me first state that I am in favour of an independent Scotland, with its own currency, in the EU. I was glad to see the piece in Saturday’s National looking at the complexity of the referendum issue and presenting Russell’s 11-point plan to go ahead and hold one anyway, regardless of Westminster’s objections (Revealed: The SNP’s route to indyref2, January 23).
After the fiasco of Brexit, I am not actually convinced that referendums have any place in British politics. That said, if one is held, we must achieve an overwhelming majority, and to do so, I think it would be useful to give the currently undecided some ideas of what the world would look like.
The first question is, what kind of government do we want? The SNP would have lost its primary reason for existence, and we would be rid of the already irrelevant remnants of the English parties. What do we want in their place?
READ MORE: Holyrood could use 'principle of self-determination' to override indyref2 veto
The Scottish Government under FM Sturgeon has proved highly capable of exercising the little power yielded to it. Fortunately we already have a degree of proportional representation, so we can hopefully avoid the factionalism that blights the parliament in London.
A second point is that we will need our own currency as quickly as possible. We could not remain in sterling, as independence means fiscal independence too. Joining the euro would be convenient, but a small new nation needs to find its feet, and being a less well-off nation in the euro during a world financial downturn is a bad idea, as Greece among others discovered.
Point three is national income. After decades (over a century) of neglect, we will need to build up industries again. Shipbuilding is close to my heart, and renewable energy is still a major opportunity. Something we cannot do is count on oil or fishing. Westminster will not yield the oil, and if we are interested in the human race surviving this century, we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels anyway. Fishing has no future as there are so few fish left, and fleets can only compete when receiving absurd levels of EU subsidies. Again, it makes most sense to pay out generous redundancy settlements and admit that fishing, like coal, belongs to the past. We can think again about oil once it has regained its correct place as a raw material. The EU, the world’s largest trading bloc, is just across the North Sea, an overwhelming reason to join it.
READ MORE: Gordon Brown's calls for UK Government reform are far too little, too late
Now to a fourth point, the military. Regarding nuclear weapons, the rusting hulks of submarines with any nuclear warheads they might contain (another big question on its own) must be returned to England on day one. If a nuclear conflict did start, Faslane would be obliterated with a single pre-emptive strike. I would be dust, so at least you wouldn’t have to worry about any more missives like this. Every person affected by the removal of Trident could be given £1m severance pay each without it affecting the huge savings from not importing American weaponry.
Concerning local defence forces, a primary reason for the EU’s existence is to prevent war in Europe, which is a second strong argument for a small, independent country to join it.
A fifth question is the interesting issue of national subsidies. Much was discussed on the matter in the last days of Brexit, but countries like France and Germany are actually quite happy to subsidise their own automotive, steel and other industries, with no questions asked. In a similar way, awkward regulations on, for example, unpasteurised cheese can simply be ignored.
Much food for though then, and now is the time for it. As I remarked, I believe that clear aims on many of these matters could usefully increase the Yes majority.
Dr Ralph Houston
Dunoon
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel