ACCORDING to the Business Select Committee, £1bn has been lost by the UK Government through its determined but hugely unpopular sell-off of Royal Mail ("Taxpayers lost out on £1bn in sell-off of Royal Mail", The Herald), July 11).
With that kind of economic incompetence on display, there can be little doubt that Scotland will be better off when the power to make such decisions is in its own hands.
The pro-independence campaign is constantly accused of offering uncertainty on important issues. What is infinitely more worrying is that, with all the facts apparently known, the UK Government managed such a screw-up. Perhaps, though, we shouldn't really be surprised. The Liberal Democrats long since rolled over. The UK is firmly in Tory hands and, with Labour weak and unable to formulate a coherent policy to fight their way out of a paper bag, it must surely now be a no-brainer. Independence? I'll take my chances any day of the week.
Christine Goldie,
3 Canniesburn Road,
Bearsden.
IN his article on a post-No scenario, Iain Macwhirter seems to miss some salient points ("Thinking the unthinkable when No really means No", The Herald, July 10). For example, it's not possible to say how the SNP would proceed after a No vote. It would still be the (largest) party of independence, still keenly aware that Scotland's problems will not be tackled without total self-government. For that reason alone it is hard to see how it could retain its corporate sanity, except by assuming the role of a strong opposition, with a mission to educate the public (especially those who had voted No) in the detail of why this unequal Union does not and cannot work for their country.
My second reason for seeing some form of co-operation between the SNP and Scottish Labour as impracticable lies in the essential nature of the latter. We saw with great clarity, when Scottish Labour previously shared power in the new Scottish Parliament, how this was not a real party, but rather a subordinate department of UK Labour.
Under a continuing Union, this Labour group - for that's all it is - will do just as it did before, namely fail to appreciate the distinctive and urgent needs of its Scottish constituency, will too often assume that policies suitable for the south can be applied to Scotland too; and will frequently defer to its London office, rather than take the risk of doing things differently. The greatest concern is not about Scottish Labour getting into bed with the Tories, but about its close marriage to London Labour.
How can we expect these ranks of the politically vision-less, led by the constitutionally purpose-less, to battle their own MPs in pursuance of a coherent settlement for Scotland, and then go on, in partnership with the SNP, to propose the very kinds of policies they have spent so much effort rubbishing since 2007? Within any UK-imposed devolution scheme, the only outcome I see from such a coalition is one partner being outmatched and the other deeply frustrated.
There is still time for No voters to reject the impotence of national subordination. Any attempt to rule that a No vote this time will be the final decision permitted by London, till the end of time, on the governance of Scotland, is arrogant, oppressive and unacceptable. Let no government dictate the future course of another nation.
Michael F Troon,
15 Crawford Avenue,
Gauldry,
Fife.
THE forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) on North Sea oil ("Fresh attack on Yes case amid new oil figures", The Herald, July 11) are not convincing, for three reasons.
First, the chairman of the OBR, Robert Chote, when interviewed on the various television news channels gave a caveat to his forecasts by saying "oil revenues are notoriously volatile and our new forecasts could be out by 40% to 60%".
Secondly, the OBR was set up by George Osborne and Danny Alexander. Just remember the recent 12-fold misrepresentation of the start-up costs of new Scottish state.
Thirdly, the wording focused on North Sea revenues and barrelage. There was no mention of Scotland's oil reserves, which will of course include the yet-vast untapped resources of the west coast.
Jim Dear,
82 Marketgate,
Arbroath.
WHAT a pleasant surprise to watch BBC1's Question Time from Inverness with not an MP or MSP in sight.
And the icing on the cake? The independence argument won hands down.
Gordon Cowan,
8 Morris Moodie Avenue,
Stevenston.
A REPORT commissioned by the Scottish Government has said that a single market in electricity and gas covering the whole of Great Britain should continue if Scotland became independent ("Maintaining a UK-wide energy market would be best outcome, report concludes", The Herald, July 10).
This makes sense. First Minister Alex Salmond has said so. He said it was "in our common interest". He has also said that a shared currency is in our common interest, along with various other issues - pensions, defence procurement, research funding and so on.
It is also in Scotland's interests that we maintain an influential role with a unified foreign policy, a powerful voice in Europe, a united voice in Nato and so on.
Given Mr Salmond's professed common cause within the social union with the English, then if Scotland votes for independence, its first act might be to seek political union with the UK. On the other hand, it might just be simpler to vote No in the referendum on September 18.
Professor Paul W Jowitt,
14 Belford Mews,
Edinburgh.
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