SOME of your correspondents have posed the question: what has the Union done for us (Letters, February 18, 20 & 21)?
What about the clearing of the debts of the Scottish landed and mercantile classes after the loss of most of their capital in the Darien disaster just before the founding of the UK in 1707? After allowing for inflation and interest payments, those debts today would amount to billions of pounds, rather like the current liabilities of the Scottish banks, also being borne by the economic muscle of the Union.
Secondly, what about the 18th-century philosophical Enlightenment – the brilliant Unionists like Adam Smith, David Hume, Robert Burns, Walter Scott, Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson and the like – that gave us a scepticism about politicians and those who pursue power, but also a robust analysis of free trade, public service, private property and capitalism, which led to a growing prosperity that had previously eluded mankind?
What about the empire? "Assembled in a fit of absent-mindedness by the English", but efficiently ordered and administered by Scots, it abolished the slave trade, connected continents by trade and telegraph, transformed the world generally for the better, and then relatively quickly, quietly and largely with honour, dissolved itself. No mean feat for a small misty island off the north-west coast of Europe.
What about the fight for freedom against Bonaparte, the Kaiser, Hitler, Tojo and Stalin – victories on behalf of civilisation that all but bankrupted us?
What about the welfare state – another worthy fight on behalf of civilisation, which, through selfish vested professional interests and moral hazard has almost brought us to ruin?
What has nationalism got to compare favourably and nobly with all that? Not much.
Richard Mowbray,
14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.
I WAS interested to read your item concerning EU Minister David Liddington's comments on the assumption by the SNP that an independent Scotland would not require passport controls at the Scottish border since it imagines automatic EU membership ("Scots passport control row", The Herald, February 21).
The naivety of the SNP over this type of practical question continues to astound me. Nationalists imagine Scotland to be like a welcoming hotel. It is obvious that in any event, it is England that would establish a very strong border crossing of Revenue and Customs officers and security personnel.They would demand passports from an independent state accessible from EU and non-EU countries and with a vulnerable coastline of more than 7000 miles.
It would be similar to the US/Mexican border; it is relatively easy to enter Mexico, but a different story when you turn round and try to enter the United States.
The fact that this level of detail has not been fully thought through indicates what an ad-hoc philosophy is being employed by some in Holyrood.
Perhaps the penny would drop if Alex Salmond drove from an independent Scotland into England and was stopped by the Cumbrian police, who would likely say: "This is an invalid driving licence as it is relating to the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – where is your Scottish one?"
Bill Brown,
46 Breadie Drive,
Milngavie.
In view of the recent contribution by David Cameron, could the wording of the referendum question not be changed to read "Should the Scottish Government have full fiscal autonomy and all the other powers of an independent government excepting foreign affairs and defence (that is, devo max)?"
This proposal would likely be supported by the great majority of Scots and could be put to the vote this year, leaving the question of full independence to be determined later in the light of experience.
T G Milne,
18 Double Dykes,
Brechin.
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