Bill Brown describes himself as a positive pro-Unionist" (Letters, July 17), and goes on to say "all the evidence in modern times shows aggressive selling makes people defensive, irritated and walk away".
This has been demonstrated by the performance of the self-described project fear campaign led by Alistair Darling, with its plethora of negative scare stories too numerous to mention. Cue the next positive argument for the Union, we are then warned that independence would be ripe territory for re-opening long closed wounds and internecine feuds, one can only assume positive pro-Unionists don't recognise irony.
As to the conclusion that the arguments – unstated – for Scotland being better on its own are as genuine as Mr Brown's tiger-skin car seat covers, I wonder what a disinterested observer would see as the best use of £100 billion: using it to finance the Trident programme would be a difficult stance to maintain. It is telling that Westminster announced it is imperative we spend this sum on missiles – and the money will be found – while at the same time those least able to pay are having the bedroom tax imposed on them, and the Trussell Trust is reporting a triple rise in referrals to food banks – 350,000 in the last year – in what is one of the richest countries in the world.
I would invite Mr Brown to read the article by Ian Bell published the same day as his letter, a scathing indictment of the UK political culture which backs the case that we are Better Together, but only for some ("The lies of the land that demonise common people", The Herald, July 17). Political self-determination: the leather seats option.
Stuart Black,
62 South Mains Road, Milngavie.
Bill Brown's letter encapsulates the paucity of thought characteristic of the No campaign. It backs the Westminster officials who tell us not to bother with the debate as the argument is already won.
He starts out by telling us the decision we make next year can be compared to his non purchase of a sports car as the sales presentation of it was based on style, glitz and seat covers. He tells us he wanted to hear the engine running but was diverted and that put him off the purchase.
It would appear he has not yet realised Scotland's engine is running in the form of a Parliament at Holyrood and to most of us it seems to be purring nicely. I am not aware of any movement to disband it and return powers to Westminster. I also believe I can take it as read that most people in Scotland approve of devolution and the decisions made in Holyrood have had a positive impact on the lives of our population.
I lean toward independence but, like most of us, await the arguments and events which could prove to be conclusive. I am aware no firm predictions can, or should, be made about all the outcomes that would follow a Yes vote just as I am aware the outcome of a No vote would mean things would go on as they are and the UK would continue to be governed for the benefit of financial rather than industrial interests.
The No campaign is based on promoting the fear that Scotland would not survive and prosper as an independent nation. Mr Brown takes this fear factor further than most by suggesting the regions of Scotland are disparate and it is likely old wounds and feuds could be reopened after independence. That really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Bill Hendry,
6 Blackwood Road, Milngavie.
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