I WOULD like to thank David Torrance for raising the issue of Scotland's cultural identity ("Curious case of creatives who support independence", The Herald, July 28).
Some of my friends urge me to vote Yes because they fear that Scotland's distinctive culture cannot be preserved unless we sever our Union with our larger neighbour. However, I am confirmed in my decision to vote No by the fact that, after 300 years of Union, Scotland still has a lively literary and musical culture.
I don't believe that either staying in the Union or independence will affect that. The local colour and the international appeal of writing, music, drama and art produced in Scotland will remain, no matter what the political arrangements. Has the United States's independence from the UK prevented the spread of American culture? After independence Scotland would still be open to the same international influences as before, English, American and a host of others.
Kenneth Brown,
61 Killermont Road, Bearsden.
Mary McCabe's comparison of young people leaving the parental home and Scotland becoming independent was interesting and very apposite (Letters, July 26). Of course it is the natural way of life for grown-up children to leave home at some stage and seek to make their own way in life. Almost all of us do so at some stage, and I believe that Scotland has now reached that point in its relationship within the UK.
No matter how much we may appreciate our parents' guidance and support through our childhood and formative years, in adulthood there comes a time when we wish to stand on our own feet, support ourselves financially and make our own life decisions. We reach a natural point when we no longer wish to have most decisions made for us, obey rules that we have had little or no say in making, and being given regular pocket money or later handing over our earnings and having only a proportion returned. Many of us in Scotland now feel the same way about leaving the UK.
When setting out on this new path, of course young people cannot accurately predict what their future income will be, whether they will have a successful career and become prosperous, or what unforeseen events may affect their life circumstances. But they still have the instinct and confidence to leave the family home and strike out into the future. Why should the people of Scotland not have the same faith and confidence, when we already know of our existing strengths and resources?
Young adults simply feel the need to be independent and run their own lives. They do not see this natural instinct as an act of destructive separation or breaking up the family, and in most cases they will still retain strong family links and continue to enjoy close a relationship with parents and siblings. If Scotland votes for independence, that will also be true of our continuing relationship with our former UK family.
Iain AD Mann,
7 Kelvin Court,
Glasgow.
I SINCERELY hope that Alex Salmond won't act on the suggestion made by Richard MacKinnon (Letters, July 28) to stand aside on Scotland becoming independent. I suggest to Mr MacKinnon that the next time someone uses Alex Salmond as an excuse for not voting Yes, he reminds the voter that Mr Salmond is considered to be one of the most outstanding politicians of his generation, not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK, and three years ago received a ringing endorsement from the electorate when he led his party to a sensational victory at the Scottish Parliament elections.
Mr MacKinnon may also wish to point out to those who denigrate the First Minister that it is under this same man's leadership that Scots don't pay over the counter for their medicine, their children receive a free university education and we're all sitting in houses where our council tax has been frozen since 2007.
However, the people of Scotland have the power and the democratic right to get rid of Alex Salmond as First Minister at the ballot box, unlike the case of David Cameron. We are dependent on voters from outwith Scotland deciding whether he stays or goes as our Prime Minister.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road,
Stirling.
BRIAN Young (Letters, July 28) contends that the referendum franchise should extend to the whole UK on the grounds that all affected should have a determining say. A union can only be established by agreement of all parties but it needs just one dissenting party to instigate dissolution. The agreement of all parties is not necessary, except possibly by express prior agreement, which does not apply in this case. He may care to consider (as a divorcee) the situation as regards marriage and divorce if that is not clear to him; one party cannot hold the other to the marriage against their wish for divorce. The purpose of the referendum is to see whether or not there is a majority wish on the part of the Scots, as one party to the Union, for dissent from it.
He begrudges his ex-wife living in Scotland a say in the future of her adopted country apparently on the dubious grounds that she is French whereas he is Scottish, obliged to live in England. This has the taste of sour grapes to me. Since presumably, however, his ex-wife would be resident in Scotland post any independence why should she not have a say in the future of her continuing domicile?
Darrell Desbrow,
Overholm, Dalbeattie.
I HOPE that the No Campaign activists who are reported to be handing out leaflets at stations and sports venues will take the opportunity to ask the attendees from nations, large and small, from around the globe, if they would like to be re-colonised or hand back some of their sovereignty to Westminster.
I would also hope that they would have the decency to let everyone know what answers they received.
David Hay,
Victoria Park, Minard, Argyll.
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