PETER Russell (Letters, June 11) complains that the Yes campaign might win without a majority of the electorate.
His idea that this would somehow mean no mandate for independence is ridiculous. If a majority Yes vote had only a minority of the electorate, then the minority No vote would have an even smaller minority of the electorate - and therefore Westminster rule would have even less of a mandate.
We can't read the minds of non-voters. Mr Russell has no more of a right to assume their support for Westminster rule than I have to assume their support for independence. Their reasons for not voting are their own, nobody has a right to use them in a bid to over-rule the democratic will of the voters.
His talk of a democratic vote for Yes being a "nightmare scenario" involving a "bitter separation" is typical of the negative, fear-mongering No campaign. Of course, No supporters will be disappointed by a Yes vote. Some will no doubt be bitter about it. But most No supporters will be grown-up enough to respect the outcome and help build the new Scotland. And of course post-Yes relations between Scotland and rUK won't be perfect - they're not perfect now either. That doesn't mean we won't still be good friends and allies capable of working together for our mutual well-being.
I guess I have more confidence in Scotland than Mr Russell does. We're not children. We've got the maturity and talent as a nation to put aside our differences post-Yes and become the more democratic, compassionate and prosperous nation we all know we can be. Post-Yes, there won't be a Team Yes and a Team No any more, there will just be Team Scotland. Angus Coull,
248 High Street,
Prestonpans.
PHIL D'Arcy (Letters, June 11) asks questions that have been answered many times before, though not to Better Together's liking.
For instance, Graham Avery, the European Commission's honorary director-general, described the Better Together and the British Government position on Scotland in Europe as "perplexing" and "absurd". As he negotiated the UK entry to the EU on 1974 that's pretty clear. He has no doubt that an independent Scotland will remain in the EU, that no EU member has any material reason to oppose Scotland's membership, and he also makes it clear that Scotland will not be forced into the euro or the Schengen travel area. As he gave this evidence in Holyrood to the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament, I would have thought Mr D'Arcy might have picked up on it.
As the pound sterling is an internationally freely traded currency, of course we can use it. The question here is whether we want to use it in a currency union with the rest of the UK as we accept a share of the massive UK debt or whether the UK refuses us this currency union and absolves us of debt as a consequence.
As to oil production and oil prices, as Mr D'Arcy lives in Aberdeen he must be aware of the record new investment in the North Sea fields which has had a short-term consequence of a temporary drop in production over the past immediate period and I would refer him to the UK Ministry of Defence's projection that oil prices will reach around $500 per barrel by the year 2040.
To pay for pensions and public services at current levels requires only the present levels of revenue collection in Scotland, which, as official figures show, rather more than does this.
Unless, of course Mr D'Arcy believes that 300 years of union has inflicted such economic mismanagement on a clever, industrious country blessed with huge natural resources that it needs handouts to survive. Or, to put it another way, they are hanging on to us to subsidise us. Aye,right.
Dave McEwan Hill,
1 Tom Nan Ragh,
Dalinlongart,
Sandbank, Argyll.
YOUR Foreign Editor, David Pratt, is sure that Scotland is more than capable of contributing to the world in its own right ("Inside Track: We must not lose sight of our place on global stage", The Herald, June 11). Independence is not needed for this, however; not to make this small nation "worthy of respect and admiration" globally. Scotland's standing continues to be high everywhere, yet the UK's still very extensive global reach enhances Scotland's global penetration, and separation will detract from this rather than add to it.
Mr Pratt's concept of a Scotland viewing foreign affairs "through a specifically Scottish rather than a Westminster telescope" is interesting but hard to interpret without detail of what is proposed, and the Parliament with enhanced devolution surely is perfectly able to develop further its existing international links.
The spread of Scottish influence over the centuries has ensured that Scottish and Scotch brands are exceeding powerful already independently of being in the UK. Staying in the UK in no way undermines this.
Joe Darby,
Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.
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