I AM sorry that three of my former colleagues at Glasgow University have joined the scaremongering on Scottish independence (Letters, February 6).
The reasons that Scotland's world-class universities and medical schools do so well in research funding is just that: they are world-class, and will remain so after independence.
Indeed I would suggest that they will get even better once the dead hand of Whitehall is removed completely from our shoulders. Scotland already over-contributes per capita to the funding of UK research through taxation, and will continue to do so. In fact, contributions from an independent Scottish budget would provide a clearer strategic research thrust in identifying and funding research of strategic importance to Scotland and her people - especially in medicine where the needs are so great, and the links with social and economic ills so clear.
An independent Scotland will be a healthier Scotland because of research, but also because more of these ills will be better addressed.
Successful research is dependent on collaboration across international borders, and this collaboration is driven by scientists themselves. That won't change - except for the better as we achieve the confidence of a fully independent people taking our rightful place in the world.
Medical research charities don't just spend in Scotland, they fund-raise in Scotland, where per capita giving by generous Scots is far in advance of other parts of the UK. It is very unlikely that this generosity would cease, or that charities would betray the spirit of that generosity (not to mention their charitable statutes) by discriminating against the generous people of Scotland - nor would they undermine their charitable purposes and statutes by spending research funds other than where they will do the most good.
Scotland's scientific expertise will continue to win those funds, and indeed, I would suggest, even more of them, as our national status and research environment is enhanced post-independence.
One of the more interesting features of the debate is the extent to which personal inclinations, allegiances and preferences can be difficult to disentangle from disinterested, objective judgment. That is understandable, but must be guarded against.
Dr John O'Dowd,
3 Downfield Gardens,
Bothwell.
PROFESSORS Holmes, Coggins and Jarrett present a scenario wherein Scotland, already leading world-class scientific research, may be disadvantaged in charitable funding for research upon independence.
To use the professors' own example of the Wellcome Trust, its own website states: "We fund a range of collaborative projects, including major international partnerships between higher-income countries." There is no reason to believe an independent Scotland's highly-regarded universities would not be considered valuable collaborators in this research.
Of course, the Wellcome Trust also states that there is no guarantee that Scotland's funding would be maintained at current levels, but future research funding levels from any source are unknown whether Scotland remains part of the UK or not.
Nonetheless, given the excellence of research conducted at Scottish universities, it would be in the interests of the charitable bodies of the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK)as well as ours to continue successful research initiatives despite our being "foreign".
Researchers have always been highly mobile, and I wouldn't expect this to change for Scots scientists regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
However, a different immigration policy in an independent Scotland to that of the UK would allow the best international researchers to be welcomed into our research institutes and establish their careers at the forefront of groundbreaking Scottish science.
Dr Ross N Gillanders,
School of Physics and Astronomy,
University of St Andrews.
IT is easy for Bob Dudley, BP's chief executive, to talk of "big uncertainties" facing the energy sector and equally predictable that Alistair Darling follows through by urging more anti-independence business leaders to weigh in ("BP chief calls for Britain to stay together and warns of uncertainty", The Herald, February 5).
Mr Dudley's choice of words underlines the fact that his uncertainty stems from two factors: first, a fear of legislative change that might require time and attention while an independent Scotland prepares the way for energy policies that guarantee a sustainable future, and secondly, shallow dismissal that takes no account of the opportunities to do things differently that will boost prospects for development and increase profit, rather than diminish it, for BP.
Has it occurred to BP that Scotland, in seizing the opportunity this year to take control of its own destiny, will thereby evolve a national plan that will encourage industry and all that is crucial to a wealthy economy to flourish and grow?
The BP Group delivered £169bn in operating cashflow in 2013. Much to its credit, and our benefit, most of it went into capital investment.
Alongside welcoming BP's massive investment in the North Sea then, I would respectfully ask Mr Dudley to listen and take proper account of what is taking place today.
Think more deeply and see the reality of impending changes of which he could benefit and see the people of the country, whose land and waters his company operates, to their great benefit.
Dan Macdonald,
Chairman, Macdonald Estates.
112 George Street,
Edinburgh.
IF I were Hugh Kerr I should not rush to discount George Galloway as a "colourful irrelevance to the debate on independence" (Letters, February 5). Mr Galloway's confession of his desire to become Prime Minister should Scotland vote for independence is surely a significant boost to the No camp's prospects.
Darrell Desbrow,
Overholm,
Dalbeattie.
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