MR Alex Gallacher invites me (Letters, January 2) to state the positive advantages of independence. Where has he been for the last 20 years? The case has been made in countless books, speeches, articles, and letters in the press. If he wants a succinct statement, I refer him to my book, Scotland in Europe: A Dialogue with a Sceptical Friend (Canongate, 1992).
Both Old Thatcherism and New Labour are designed to suit the ideas and interests of ''middle England''. The response of Scottish opinion shows very clearly how different these are from our own. Since, however, the population of England is more than 10 times larger than ours, any British Government, for good democratic reasons, must give priority to the interests of England both in internal policy and in the positions they take in the European Union.
It is no surprise that we constantly see examples of this, as over Rosyth, Bishopton, and the expenditure on the Millennium Dome and Covent Garden. If Scotland had been independent, we should still have a steel industry and our fishermen and hill farmers would have a much better deal.
The clearest demonstration of the value of independence is to compare the progress of the small independent countries of north-west Europe with our own. With fewer natural resources, they all enjoy greater prosperity and a better quality of life than Scotland. Take Finland, for example. Before it became independent in 1917, it was the poorest country in Europe. It is now one of the richest.
There are essentially two reasons why we need independence. The first is to enable us to build a society which suits our conditions, ideas, and aspirations. The second is to enable us to take our proper place in international affairs and to ensure that our ideas and interests are not forgotten as they are now in our present state of international invisibility.
Paul H Scott,
33 Drumsheugh Gardens,
Edinburgh.
January 4.
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