THOSE of us who heard Sir Nicholas Macpherson's evidence to the Public Administration Committee ("Currency union civil servant defends advice", The Herald, April 10) will have been left scratching our heads.
As you report, Sir Nicholas disavowed any intention to influence Scottish voters; his intended audience was "the British people, the wider world, the markets". Yet he was anxious that his advice should be available before the referendum, and he cannot have been innocent of the uses to which it would be put once in the political arena, or the possible impact on public opinion in Scotland.
If the purpose was to end all speculation on the matter of currency union, then the intervention has evidently not succeeded, as contributions to your pages have shown.
The committee's focus is on the role of civil servants during the campaign period of the referendum. Sir Nicholas's intervention raises a more interesting question, which is the role of UK civil servants in the period between a Yes vote, if such there be, and the achievement of independence - especially the role of civil servants in departments, such as the Treasury, responsible for reserved powers.
Those departments, as Sir Nicholas conceded, serve the whole of the United Kingdom and will continue to do so.
Nick Clegg may tell us that the Government is spending no time considering what might happen in these circumstances, but I would be surprised if the Cabinet Office had not, on a contingency basis, considered the guidance which might be provided to civil servants in the context of the machinery for negotiation. It would make a fascinating read.
Peter Syme,
35/3 East Claremont Street,
Edinburgh.
HOW interesting it was to read the expert views of Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute and Lord West, the Former Sea Lord, on the possible relocation of Trident from the Clyde ("Scotland Office minister insists: No deal on Trident", The Herald, April 11). Both conclude that it may be impossible to move Trident to Milford Haven in Wales or Devonport in Plymouth due to them having public fears and because it would certainly run into public opposition. The Scottish people have been forbidden from having such a choice; Trident was foisted upon us on the Clyde and in close proximity to Scotland's largest city, Glasgow. What a disgraceful legacy to leave our children's children.
Donald J Morrison,
20 Haig Street,
Portknockie,
Buckie.
NICOLA Sturgeon is correct in her appeal to Labour voters: vote Yes on September 18 and you may get back your party, but vote No and you guarantee continuing London control of the Scottish Labour Party.
In doing so, you are not betraying the Labour Party. It was the Labour Party of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown which betrayed the traditional Scottish Labour voter, and this continues with the policies of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls .
Whether an SNP supporter or not, now is the time for all those who honestly wish a sea change in Scottish politics to make their mark; all the Scottish parties need to break away from the suffocating influence of London autocrats.
It has been made clear during this referendum campaign that the No campaign is driven by the metropolitan perspective. All major pronouncements and gaffes have been issued from there by Cabinet ministers, MPs, Labour and Conservative peers and commentators who see Scotland as a remote and irritating backwater .
Let us grasp this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take control of our own political parties. Let the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties join the Greens and SNP in speaking up fearlessly for their voters, without always looking over their shoulder to see if London agrees .
James Mills,
29 Armour Square, Johnstone.
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