LIKE millions of others, I watched Eilidh Child's heroic attempt to win the Commonwealth Games 400m hurdles title ("Face of Games Eilidh Child is roared to silver in hurdles final", The Herald, August 1).
The tension before the start and sense of relief after her race was palpable, perhaps best exhibited by the spontaneous rendition of The Proclaimers 500 Miles by the crowd after the race. Eilidh put enormous pressure on herself when she took on the role of Commonwealth Games poster girl. Why did she do this? She could have kept a lower profile and eased the pressure. I like to think that she did so because she believed the pressure would spur her on to greater things.
At some point in her career Eilidh Child probably had to decide whether she was content to be a successful local athlete or to compete with the best on the world stage. The local option would have allowed her to continue to live at home, be with family and friends and get regular write-ups in the local press. Tilting at the world stage meant leaving home, total dedication and the risk of failure. Clearly Eilidh chose the latter route and whatever the future holds, she will never have to ask herself "what if?" because she took the risk and now knows the answer to that question.
My fear is that, in the event of a No vote in September, the Scottish people will be haunted by the "what if?" question. To vote No is a vote for (apparent) safety, to shackle ourselves to a declining and increasingly divisive UK (slipping from seventh in global GDP per head to 22nd today, and the fourth most unequal country). A playing-it-safe vote consigns us to the status quo and near-certain mediocrity.
Voting Yes, on the other hand, is a vote for opportunity. And voting Yes isn't a foolhardy decision - Scotland has a strong economy, a wealth of natural resources and world-class higher education. The question is, do we want to be in the "not bad" league or do we want to be world class? Across the North Sea are several examples of world-class countries. The Nordic countries are all more prosperous than the UK (Norway by more than 70%), all enjoy much greater levels of equality and none feels the need for the safety net of being tied to a larger country. A No vote will leave Scotland's claim to be a proud, confident nation to be hollow and leave our Nordic neighbours scratching their heads in puzzlement.
Philip Maughan,
17, Bornesketaig, Kilmuir, Isle of Skye.
WHAT price a national anthem for an independent Scotland? Clearly the impoverished nation predicted by Better Together could never afford to pay royalties for Flower of Scotland to The Corries (Music) Ltd, who must be laughing all the way to the bank after its frequent outings at the Commonwealth Games this last week.
Perhaps it's time for Alex Salmond to announce Scots Wha Hae as Plan B? This, in addition to having far superior words and tune to Roy Williamson's kailyard dirge, has the advantage of being long out of copyright.
John Eoin Douglas,
7 Spey Terrace,
Edinburgh.
FRACKING is now to be extended to all parts of Britain, including our national parks ("National Park is in area open to fracking", The Herald, July 29). It is vital to the nation's economy, we're told. So was hydroelectric power, then nuclear power, then wind and wave power, with wind turbines all over the countryside. Result? Crippling fuel prices with some people deciding whether to eat or heat. Shale oil exploration has caused huge dissent in England and America. In Scotland, it brings even more importance to the wider issue of independence.
Whether good or bad, having no control over fracking is disturbing. It is yet another issue like taxation, going to war, immigration or European membership (England's vast numerical vote could take us out next year against our wishes) that Scots have no control over. The referendum will allow Scots to vote for dependence or independence. Hopefully for all our sakes it is the latter, countering the No campaign's rather bizarre claim that Scotland must be held in dependence forever.
Robert Gritton,
17 Glen Drive, Dyce,
Aberdeen.
IAIN Macwhirter is right to say that the Yes campaign has mobilised "an unprecedented alliance of writers, artists, performers and intellectuals" ("So much to celebrate, apart from emotional intoxication", The Herald, July 31). What it has not as yet mobilised is a majority of the Scottish public, who are yet to have answers as to how the post- independence Utopia is to be funded; this serious question appears to be of secondary interest to the chattering classes who support the Yes campaign.
Further, his claim that emotional nationalism has largely died out since the creation of the Scottish Parliament does not bear scrutiny, as can be seen from the unsavoury reaction on social media whenever prominent figures pledge support to either the Yes or No campaigns.
Alan Ramage,
12 St Fillan's Terrace,
Edinburgh.
OUT of a plethora of queries from the voters of Scotland, the big question which Alex Salmond has still to answer is: which currency will be used in Scotland if voters at the referendum opt to leave the UK?
Perhaps there is still sufficient time before his debate on TV with Alistair Darling for him to think of an answer which we can believe? There will be, I am sure, lots of flannel, but I fear little substance.
It is simply not good enough for one of the army of SNP spokespersons to announce: that "it's Scotland's pound too". Any currency requires to have a lender of last resort to back it up in international markets; the Bank of England will obviously be off-limits to a separate Scottish monetary system.
For someone with a background in economics Mr Salmond comes over as a person who needs some urgent tuition in his subject - or is he conveniently just playing at being daft?
Roll on September 18, after which hopefully dear old Scotland will get back on an even keel. All the acrimony stemming from Mr Salmond's obsession for independence has caused rifts between kith and kin. When nationalism has yet again been swept under the carpet we will need time to recover from its extremes.
Robert IG Scott,
Northfield,
Ceres,
Fife.
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