I AGREE with much of what Alison Rowat said about the Prime Minister declining to debate with the First Minister on the question of Scottish independence ("Why Cameron should debate independence with Salmond", The Herald, January 10).
However, the Downing Street decision not to take part has, in my view, nothing to do with David Cameron's popularity in Scotland or the lack of it. He has not reached the nadir of popularity reached by Margaret Thatcher. She is in a class of her own from that perspective.
Nor is it to do with Mr Cameron being viewed by some as a "toff". Toffs are not an unknown species in Scotland.
Neither is the reason the debate being one exclusively for Scots living in Scotland. This is a particularly spurious argument in view of the fundamental implications for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland should Scotland vote for independence.
In fact, the real reason for non-participation is one of realpolitik. The polls have shown consistently a majority against independence. That being the case why give Alex Salmond another high-profile platform? Moreover, Mr Cameron is probably still suffering from the scars arising from allowing Nick Clegg the opportunity of debating the issues on national television before the last General Election. That particular episode played a significant role in determining the formation of the current Coalition Government.
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
THERE has been much hot air with regard to the appropriate match-up for debates on the independence referendum with little understanding of the roles of the various parties in this connection.
On examination, it is clear that there are two different types of organisation involved in stating the case for and against. On one hand, we have two umbrella organisations, Yes Scotland and Better Together, which represent both a range of political interests as well as those with no political affiliations. On the other hand, we have the governments of Scotland and the United Kingdom contesting the outcome of the vote.
Logically, Blair Jenkins, chief executive of Yes Scotland, should be in debate with his opposite number, Blair McDougall, campaign director for Better Together. It follows on that Dennis Canavan, Yes chairman, should be matched against his opposite number, Alastair Darling, a Labour backbencher with no governmental authority.
On the political front, debates have already taken place between Nicola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister, and the Scottish Secretary, Alistair Carmichael and his predecessor. Therefore, it must be the case that the First Minister should be debating with a more senior member of the Coalition Government and if David Cameron is unwilling to do so this only leaves his deputy, Nick Clegg, or the Chancellor, George Osborne.
Gordon Evans,
5 York Drive,
Burnside,
Rutherglen.
TOM Reilly (Letters, January 10) asks three questions of a practical nature that must be in the minds of many undecided voters.
My own expectations about these questions are that my pension entitlement will not worsen upon independence, that I will not need to do anything about registering, other than complete the usual form for the Electoral Register, and that the civil service will not fail to cope with the changes.
In addition, in the event of a Yes vote, I will rejoice that the opportunity will be there to create a fairer society, where the government better represents the views of the electorate, where resources will not be squandered on nuclear deterrence, which will not try to posture on the international stage, will not embark on wars abroad and which will care better for its most vulnerable citizens instead of scapegoating them.
I will look forward to improved relations with people in England, and even with some English-born people here, because they will no longer regard me with suspicion as a "subsidy junkie", someone who benefits from additional state handouts that are paid for by English taxes.
It might even, in time, lead to a more federal system in the rest of Britain.
Julian Smith,
3 Warrington Court,
Limekilns,
Fife.
READERS will be familiar with this list of words, perhaps excepting the last one.
l Pythagorean Theory: 24 words.
l The Lord's Prayer: 66 words.
l Archimedes's Principle: 67 words.
l The Ten Commandments: 179 words.
l The Gettysburg Address: 286 words.
l US Declaration of Independence: 1300 words.
l US Constitution with all 27 amendments: 7818 words.
l Scotland's Future. The White Paper: 170,000 words.
Donald Macaskill,
35 Saltoun Street,
Glasgow.
IAIN Macwhirter wrote: "Look at America, land of the immigrant for 400 years. It didn't do them any harm" ("Where stands Scotland as politics of race rises in UK?", The Herald, January 9).
The Native Americans lost their homes, their lands and their livelihoods, as well as a large number of people in concentration camps.
We who were born in Britain are, by definition, the Native British. Was Mr Macwhirter trying to frighten us?
Roger Waigh,
4 The Meadows,
Helensburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article