Nicola Sturgeon stated last week: ‘Independence does not guarantee a better future.’ Andrew Wilson has been stating for years: ‘Independence will be hard with no guarantee of success. In 2019 he said: ‘Independence would mean more, not less austerity.’ One question: why do they want to make life hard’ for the people of Scotland when there is no ‘guarantee’ of a better future? Separatists are clearly happy for themselves and future generations to have a very uncertain ‘hard’ future with ‘no guarantee of success’. The only winners in this are Nationalist MPs and MSPs, who are on a massive gravy train which they don’t want to get off and conning their supporters. Douglas Cowe, Newmachar. Aberdeenshire.
SCOTLAND MATTERS reached well over 1 million people at the Holyrood election, 1.4m at the Council Elections and in both elections the SNP’s vote and seats won were far below their own predictions.
Now they want another referendum in October 2023. We need to:
- Hammer home their failures – trains, ferries, schools, NHS, jobs, deficit, housing, drugs – and Scotland’s decline since 2007.
- Highlight the issues: the border, currency, NATO, pensions, the £180m debt, the COST and UPHEAVAL to all Scots.
- Get the message to every one of Scotland’s 4.3m voters.
- AND BOYCOTT any illegal IndyRef2!!
However, this costs a LOT of money. PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO OUR CROWDFUNDER AND LET’S DERAIL INDYREF2 TOGETHER!!
I think there are two answers to John Lloyd’s ruminations on the failure of the Census in Scotland (Letters, 20 June). The first is that a large element of the three per cent difference between the rest of the UK and Scottish return rates is probably down to there being a large rise in people who do not participate in, or consider themselves part of Scottish society compared to ten years ago or their counterparts in other areas of the UK. This is now measurable, very concerning and should be the subject of a proper inquiry. The second is several hundred thousand people like me did not imagine some earnest Civil Service statistician reading our responses but Messrs Sturgeon, Blackford and Robertson’s peep show looking for opportunities to spin the answers to their intrusive, leading questions on sexuality, “Scots” language (what-ever that is) and nationality in order to bolster political, policy propaganda on these manufactured issues. We either complete and return the form under protest, or we complied only because we are law-abiding. Mind you, if the roughly 60,000 non-compliers are fined and pay £1,000 that would raise £60m towards hiring some nurses or train drivers. Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire.
I agree with Martin Redfern’s comments regarding the issue of a hard border cutting main-land Britain in half should Scotland leave the UK (Letters, 18 June). As of now shopping trips, family visits, getting to work or a night out between, for example, Northumberland and the Scottish Borders mean nothing but driving along the road from A to B, a normality enjoyed by generations. With separation, this would become international travel crossing a full-on international border. To many of us, this will sound like a crazy idea. Moreover, making national borders obsolete is one of the main objectives of the EU with Freedom of Movement being one of its more recent achievements- something people in Britain, whether in Scotland or England, have enjoyed for generations. Undoing this could actually be seen as an un-European, anachronistic concept at odds with the same European values Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP purport to hold so dear. Regina Erich, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire.
Is it not time the advocates of Indyref2 came clean to allow a grown-up debate on the implications, such as possible border consequences, of another referendum by admitting their desire cannot properly be described simply as to achieve “independence” unless they say from what? Their stated aim is to leave the UK and join the EU, in effect substituting control from Brussels/ Strasbourg for that more currently exercised from Westminster. To call that achieving “independence” is a nonsense unless it is qualified by “from the UK”. There is also the necessity of framing an appropriate question in any future referendum on this subject. A Yes/No answer could at first sight be thought to be appropriate if the question were whether or not to stay in or leave the UK, but then fairness demands that account must be taken of the inherent bias in favour of Yes over No as accepted by the Electoral Commission. If there is another referendum, whether advisory or determining, it follows that to reflect accurately what is at stake it should ask whether the people wish to Leave or Stay in the UK. Anything else is at best misleading, whether deliberately or inadvertently. Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.