AFTER reading Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp’s excellent work, Scotland the Brief, your article yesterday, “How Scotland is tricked into thinking it’s too poor”, begs a salient question.
Even if the Unionists’ premise was true, and Scotland was too poor to be independent – preposterous when there are around 120 independent countries smaller and less wealthy than Scotland is – just who do they think created such a scenario?
More than 300 years of UK union and here we would be still too small and poor. Isn’t that of itself proof positive that the Union does not work for Scotland and it’s long overdue to move on?
Your article clearly illustrates that remaining in the Union means a future no different to the past that has rendered us “too poor”. With an alternative option to adopt the Nordic model and reap at the very least the success it enjoys.
Seems a no-brainer to me.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
I REFER to this article in yesterday’s issue “Danish minister backs Scotland returning to the EU”.
While it may not be possible to join the Nordic Council as a full member before we gain independence, could Scotland not in the meantime apply for and be granted observer status?
There would be immediate benefit from regular networking with delegates from all the different member countries, and this in turn would surely lead to practical ideas for policy development in our own northern nation, alike both in size and outlook.
John Gerrard
Glasgow
MILLIONS of words over acres of your excellent newspaper have promoted the idea of having another referendum on independence.
I cannot be alone in asking myself why. Why would a group of intelligent, convinced supporters of Scotland regaining its independence pin their hopes to a deferred, vulnerable mechanism?
On the one hand is a legal, internationally recognised, speedy mechanism that is entirely under Scotland’s control, ie a plebiscite election. On the other is a mechanism that requires more legislation, the agreement of the UK Government or lengthy court cases to get some agreement, is still vulnerable to UK Government interference of all kinds, and is anyway not to happen until “after the economic effects of Covid are recovered from”, whenever that may be.
The correct choice looks blindingly obvious to me. The May election could see the end of the UK Government being able to wreck everything we cherish in Scotland. Why not make it so?
S Mackenzie
Wester Ross
YOUR correspondent Valerie Waters (February 16) has it absolutely right; an independent Scotland needs a non-partisan, written constitution. That is why the non-partisan charity, Constitution for Scotland, has been set up and why we are grateful for our monthly column in The National.
What we need now is for the readers and the entire Yes movement to get right behind what we’ve been doing, register on the website, www.constitutionforscotland.scot, and start commenting and voting on the model constitution that is offered there. Most importantly, we need you to exercise your “quick vote” in general endorsement of the model. You’ll understand why we need to demonstrate wide support and if you do nothing else on the website, do that. Having given that general endorsement you are still free to comment, submit amendments and the like.
The website is built on an internationally recognised platform that exists solely for community consultation. I’d suggest that the platform is pretty simple to use but we have given around a dozen Zoom talks to groups around the country to help explain things. If you want one, please ask through the website.
We’ve done a very credible job but we don’t own the model constitution; you do. Now we need you to get wired into this and shape our future. This is our job, not the politicians’.
John C Hutchison
Secretary, Constitution for Scotland
YESTERDAY at Holyrood there was a major assault on Nicola Sturgeon by both the Tory and Labour leaders.
Our First Minister has been doing a first-class job regarding the pandemic so therefore they are trying to find a way to reduce her standing regarding this good work.
It is quite apparent that there is cooperation/collusion taking place between Ruth Davidson and Jackie Bailie with regards to questions asked. Also it is quite obvious to me that the tactic now being used is to identify and attack the strengths of the SNP.
I have been aware of this for several weeks now, and it matters not that truth may get in the way of negative propaganda. When given a public platform, the blue and red Tory representatives will distort the truth and are quite willing to tell lies. Once the story is in the public domain there are plenty of outlets prepared to reinforce the falsehoods.
This is a tactic I am sure we are going to see a great deal of from now until the election, so be aware and call it out whenever you can.
Douglas Stanley
Ayr
I WAS shocked at the behaviour of LibDem MSP Alex Cole-Hamilton towards a fellow politician (Voters urged to turn backs on LibDem MSP in swearing row, February 16). However, I am enraged by his subsequent words as an excuse. SHE MADE ME DO IT is every misogynists reasoning for any kind of appalling behaviour towards women, be it domestic violence, bullying or intimidation. He should not be allowed to continue in his position.
Joanna McKenzie
Perth
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