IT must have been coincidence for, first, an England-based Scot Andrew Marr to highlight Anglophobia risks in the referendum run-up, and 10 days later for a Scotland-based Englishman Sir John Elvidge to forecast a toxic legacy following the independence referendum ("Warning referendum divisions could leave a toxic legacy", The Herald, August 27).
I oppose both points of view. If there is Anglophobia, it is more than matched by English antagonism towards Scotland, as anyone who has followed the proceedings at Scottish Questions at Westminster would testify. We witness a succession of questions from, mainly, Conservative MPs for English constituencies, asking "for how much longer are English taxpayers going to be lumbered with subsidising the Jocks?", when there is no evidence for the proposition. Significantly, that line of questioning was put on ice while the Scotland Act, restricting Scotland to the Union, was being put through the House of Commons, and which led to the famous signing between Alex Salmond and David Cameron.
As for Sir John's comments about "polarisation", that, too, is determined by the English-dominated Unionist invective against the SNP and independence. Is it such a crime that Scotland should opt for that, without every opportunity being taken to put one hurdle after another in the way to obstruct progress? Sir John highlights the popular support for the so-called devo max option - why, then, was the English-dominated Westminster Unionist Coalition so determined to prevent that being included on the ballot paper? Of course, its objective was to embarrass Alex Salmond by having only independence on the ballot paper in the belief he, or rather the Yes campaign, could not achieve a Yes vote.
A recent Future for England report indicated that in a poll the English voted 34% for their own independence - roughly similar to the Scottish independence poll ratings.
So what would give the English figure a bigger boost than a Scottish No result, with the English being faced with subsidising the Jocks into perpetuity - and where would Scotland be if our No vote was followed by the English achieving their own independence?
Douglas R Mayer,
76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.
WHAT a balanced and thoughtful response from Ian Bell to nonsense from south of the Border that friend has turned against friend and families have been divided over the issue of Scottish independence by some who should know better or are simply bent on making mischief ("Sorry to disappoint, but we are not mired in a hate-filled war", The Herald, August 28).
Most exchanges I have listened to have in the main been restrained, not hectoring or ill-natured, often diffused with some humour and at worst may end in agreeing to differ.
And whatever the outcome of the referendum I am sure we'll get on with it, with a bit of a moan at times as usual, but still good friends.
Wha's like us?
R Russell Smith,
96 Milton Road,
Kilbirnie.
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