Letters II: Yes vote case rests on our history as an independent nation

It’s true that Westminster is now overtly treating Scotland as a colony. But if we think about it, in 1707 we weren’t a democracy. The people didn’t want union but the landowners were happy to accept very substantial bribes to form a parliamentary union with our southern neighbour. It didn’t matter to them that, because of our population differences, we could never be an equal partner in that union.

For me, the case for independence rests on our history as an independent nation and the undemocratic nature of the union thrust upon us in 1707.

Brexit isn’t in itself a reason for independence but the secretive way the UK side of the negotiations is being handled demonstrates yet again that devolution, welcome though it is, doesn’t give us a voice on the world stage. It’s Westminster that calls the tune.

As for the UN’s 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, its opening words recognise “the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence”. It goes on to refer to “increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such people, which constitute a serious threat to world peace”.

We’re told the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation looks annually at its list of non-self-governing peoples and makes recommendations. Of the territories where the UK is the administering power, we have eight in the Atlantic and Caribbean, Gibraltar in Europe and Pitcairn in the Pacific.

It’s clear their definitions don’t cover the situation we find ourselves in. Historically, Scotland agreed a parliamentary union with England. As things stand today, the combined forces of the Yes movement, SNP and other organisations are in no way a threat to world peace, which is the de facto reason for the existence of the UN.

So we come back to the mainstream thinking and decide how we can tip the balance to give us a majority in a referendum. Perhaps there is some logic in having a residency qualification. Somewhere between three and five years would exclude those who have recently migrated to take advantage of the positive side of the Holyrood government and those who might yet move to influence the vote. If it would tip the scales, it would be worth it.
Catriona Grigg
Embo

I HAVE been quite disturbed by some of the recent letters regarding residency requirements for indyref2. We can all come up with horror stories about Unionist voters who are just dead-set against indy, but that does not get away from the fact that we cannot exclude anyone lawfully resident here. Singling out any group due to race or religion would be outrageous and illegal, but it seems to be OK to exclude “other Brits”.

They may or may not have voted in the majority against independence, but it is also glaringly obvious that the majority of those who voted against indy are Scots born and bred; are we going to exclude from the vote possibly the biggest groups of Scots No voters – the rich/landed/entitled?
Julia Pannell
Friockheim

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire service morale isn’t just low ... it’s at rock bottom

I AM sorry but it would appear that The National has accepted reports from fire service media with regards to change and morale within the fire service as being the truth (‘Centralisation is affecting morale’, The National, August 11).

The truth is that morale in the fire service isn’t low, it is at rock bottom. I am sure this would be confirmed with a visit to any fire station.

Apart from the fact wages have stood still for nigh on 10 years, and our pensions have been continually eroded, firefighter numbers have also been reduced year on year. This, though, is apparently not enough.

We are told our current model is not sustainable beyond 2018,which equates to more firefighter positions being lost.

This information, somehow, does not seem to appear in the public domain, but lives are being put at risk for the sake of austerity.

As employees, we are being told we have to expand our roles to possibly gain a pay rise. The public should be aware that for us to expand our roles, the vast majority of our training will be self-taught via computer packages.

Firefighters want to provide a top-class service and will always endeavour to do their best whatever the situation. But we are being denied that opportunity because our role is being expanded too far and the training for these roles is far from adequate.

Therefore, whichever institute or research department can report whatever perception it likes, but the reality is the quality and availability of service being delivered is diminishing.

This used to be addressed when a major incident occurred and there would be a knee-jerk reaction.

But very recent events show that, although heroes attended Grenfell, MPs will cheer the fact that they will still impose a pay cap on those same heroes.

The public should be told the truth! Emergency services are being seriously diminished by continuing cuts and lives will be lost.
A Very Concerned Firefighter
Address supplied

CATRIONA Clark (Letters, August 12) makes the point that the Government went for the easy option and penalised ordinary people to pay for banking greed. It is long overdue that the bankers were penalised for what they did. They took money which wasn’t theirs. We now know they broke the law by manipulating Libor rates and exchange rates to create their bonuses. Why is no attempt being made to recover this wealth, as it is the proceeds of crime? It would go a long way in helping to reduce the national deficit.

That money is still there, in foreign tax havens, holiday property, Swiss bank accounts, yachts and other investments most people can only dream of.
Alan Anderson
Portlethen

ALLAN Sutherland’s letter (The National, August 11), had two misleading points. Firstly, he claims Aberdeen is adapting to Brexit by increasing high value exports outwith the EU. Sadly, it has not occurred to him that full Brexit has not occurred yet. We are still in the EU with all current access and benefits.

Secondly, his greatest “howler” is his statement: “We also collect £23 million more in local taxes than we get back from Holyrood.”

Here is the rub. Since Holyrood gets a block grant from Westminster and handles about 15 per cent of all taxes raised in Scotland, the rest being handled by Westminster, has Allan Sutherland estimated what proportion of UK taxes, revenues, oil revenues, fiscal duties etc Aberdeen has received from Westminster let alone Scotland?

In other words, his statistical cherry-picking does not reveal the extent of revenue flows to and from Westminster. Perhaps he should look at how Norway dealt with one fiscal stream, namely oil revenue, and compare the relative benefits which have accrued to the two nations.
John Edgar
Stewarton

ONE of the most marvellous things about the 2014 independence referendum was the inclusiveness of the Yes campaign. As a reader of The National from day one, I have recently noticed in the letters pages a “Blame the English who live here in Scotland” campaign gaining momentum. Oh dear!
Mark Waters
East Lothian