THERE is a great deal I agree with in Jim Fairlie’s letter (July 30), but one fundamental issue stands out for me as a problem with his view. I agree, for example, that the fudge about hanging on to the pound sterling contributed to the failure of the campaign to get over the necessary percentage of votes nationally. Scotland needs her own currency, whether that be the Scottish pound, the Scots merk, or whatever, and we need our own bank as the lender of last resort, detached from the rUk currency, though linked to it in value at least to begin with.
I disagree totally with Mr Fairlie’s inability to see the connection between Scottish independence and membership of the European Union. For three centuries Scotland’s fate has been in the hands of the Westminster Parliament and the UK Government, so whatever the people of Scotland wanted never had enough votes in Westminster to carry a decision. So independence will sort that, a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh will give voice to those three centuries of frustration, and Scotland will no longer be the tail that the Westminster dog wags.
At that point the various political parties in Scotland will be able to debate and decide on the way forward as an independent country. That means the SNP, with all their recent experience of government; the Labour party, with all its internal disagreements; the Liberal Democrats, with their essentially social democrat policies; and the Conservatives, who will have had to put country before party at last. And I will be very surprised at that stage if the decision does not go in favour of seeking membership of the European Union.
Why? Because within that union Scotland would have the ability to fight for Scottish fishermen’s interests, Scottish farming subsidies, cooperation on scientific research, free movement of people, and many other issues that have been subsumed over the years under UK interests, which have largely ignored Scottish views. A new country would not want to be in the same position as the rUK after a no-deal Brexit, trying desperately to make trade deals with every country there is. A new country would be better advised to join a successful union with already agreed trade deals, and one from which Scotland has benefited in the past in terms of infrastructure, for example. And we already comply with EU standards. There is strength in unity. Germany is no less an independent country because it is in the European Union, nor is France, nor Spain, nor Italy, nor Denmark.
The important thing to focus on in the first instance is that Scottish independence is not only highly desirable now, but also inevitable. The ineptitude of the present government and its even more inept opposition points up more clearly than ever before that Scottish independence must now happen. Then we will see.
Liz MacInally
Ardfern
READ MORE: Control over currency is essential to independence
WHAT is not clear to me when I see the frequent letters in The National from folk in favour of iScotland but who are adamant that we must leave the EU is how they see Scotland’s future relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, particularly in economic terms. They never talk about this (Jim Fairlie’s recent long letter is typical in this regard).
Unfortunately Scotland is likely to be out of the EU before becoming independent. We shall be stuck with the mess created by a Westminster government against the will of a large majority of the Scottish people.
So what do we do with independence if the EU is so bad? Go along with rUK in whatever mess they have left us in? Try some sort of EFTA/EEA type of deal with the EU which would seem to contradict the logic of leaving in the first place? Or join rUK in making world-wide deals?
A small Scotland on its own would have a tough time making half-decent deals; and this would probably tie us closer to England than ever.
I know what I would want for an independent Scotland – apply to rejoin the EU or have as close a deal with the EU as at all possible. What do Yes/Leavers want for Scotland? They will have to tell us some time.
Tom Crozier
Ayr
WHAT a disgusting attitude Michael Fry has toward the tourist visitors to this country (The Swiss get tourism right – why do we want cheapskates here?, July 31). Cheapskates and plebs he calls them. Well those cheapskates he refers to contribute £12 billion towards the Scottish economy and half again to the GDP.
He suggests that Scotland should cater for the world’s wealthiest as in Switzerland, a country he has selected as a comparison. Switzerland’s tourism and economy is long established. Independent since the 17th century, it has grown its federal economy for the past 150 years – unlike Scotland, which is not an independent country or a federal country but which is regarded as a state within the Kingdom of a long forgotten Great Britain.
However I digress. Scotland is still very much under the financial control of Westminster.
I feel that Michael Fry is yet again displaying his old Tory values. Values that share an income associated with Tory millionaire politicians who have no connection with the real world of the ordinary tourist that visit natural Scottish tourist attractions. Natural attractions he would love to see high-class hotels built into so as to accommodate wealthy tourists.
Let us welcome all tourists to Scotland regardless of which country they come from or how big or small their bank balance is. Scotland is an equal value country whether we are residents or visitors.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
READ MORE: The Swiss get tourism right – why do we want cheapskates here?
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here