MURDO Fraser’s latest contribution to GB News make the case for Scotland’s independence rather nicely.
He talks about the vast resources that Scotland has, and instead of using this as evidence that Scotland could manage very nicely as an independent state, he then tries to say that the UK needs Scotland because of this.
WATCH: Murdo Fraser accidentally makes case for Scottish independence on GB News
He inadvertently hits the nail on the head, in that we would succeed very well and use our skills and resources to our own advantage, not to fill the UK’s Treasury with money we wouldn’t see again. We are no fools here. We know that they need Scotland’s money and England would be a small, inconsequential state without us.
Keith Taylor
via email
THE recent interview of Murdo Fraser is surely the most bizarre sequence of utterances from this most bizarre, never-elected MSP speaking, it would seem, as someone from beyond Scotland’s borders.
He reels off the assets the UK would lose if Scotland became independent then gleefully decries the governance by the SNP on a range of issues without reflecting that the assets Scotland pours south are the very assets which would allow Scotland to invigorate the rations we must spread thinly over our services purely because we are restricted by being tied to a fixed sum from Westminster, and, moreover, without powers to borrow against the considerable assets he says UK would lose if we left.
I wonder how many Unionists will pick up on the gaping holes in his thinking and realise that there is a chasm in the argument being avoided by the press and Unionist media at large.
Tom Gray
Braco
READ MORE: Supreme Court's 'conservative' bent poses key indyref2 hurdle, expert warns
NOW we know exactly what the people of Scotland are up against in their quest for independence. Murdo Fraser has failed to be elected by the voters when he has presented himself as a candidate for election yet has been returned to parliament as a representative of his party. His interview has exposed the attitude of individuals chosen by the London-based parties then imposed on the people of Scotland by means of the voting system; a D’Hondt version now clearly selected by the Westminster parliament parties for its devolved Holyrood branch in order to maintain its control over Scotland’s assets.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
I NEARLY choked on my Sunday breakfast. I was frankly taken aback by a couple of statements buried deep in the article headed “Yes vote boosted by PM’s denial say indy experts” (June 19).
The statements in question read “However, SNP chiefs believe that a consultative ballot is within the powers of the Scottish Government and has a better chance of bypassing legal troubles, according to reports in The Times,” and: “A source told The Times that the SNP leadership regards a consultative referendum as ‘win win’, which would not be unofficial in any way.”
I have wondered for some time how the SNP had planned to hold a referendum without as Section 30. I never in my wildest nightmares thought that they would go down the dead-end road already tread by Catalonia. Have we learned nothing? If this is true the SNP leadership have taken a very major decision without consulting its membership let alone those of us in the wider Yes movement.
READ MORE: Indyref2 'to be consultative in attempt to bypass legal issues'
I hope the First Minister will confirm or deny these rumours in the next few days so that we are at least all clear as to what we will be spending our time, money and efforts on in the lead-up to October 2023. I sincerely hope we are not going to waste our efforts on a worthless referendum just because the SNP leadership see that as an easier option.
Boris Johnson, Douglas Ross, Murdo Fraser, Anas Sarwar, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock and their cronies will be breathing a large sigh of relief if the referendum we have waited eight years for is to be reduced to a consultation which they will ridicule, probably boycott, and in the end ignore the result of regardless of its outcome.
Glenda Burns
Glasgow
WELL done to the Scottish Government for recognising the injustice and cruelty inflicted on the coal miners by the Margaret Thatcher government in the years of 1984-85.
This dispute was long before the formation of the Scottish Parliament.
With this apology the Scottish Government is recognising the cruelty and divisions caused by the Tories, who were the real villains in this, and also the British police who were transported around Britain to mete out more cruelty and baton charges. 11,291 miners were arrested and many lost their jobs because of the charges against them.
READ MORE: Miners’ Strike Pardon Bill passes but financial compensation push fails
Douglas Ross has the gall and audacity to stand up at First Minister’s Questions and talk about the divisions a second independence referendum would bring.
It should have been Douglas Ross that stood up in parliament and apologised on behalf of the Tories for the cruelty, hardship, arrests and the divisions caused in families and mining communities at the behest of Mrs Thatcher.
Robert McCaw
Renfrew
SO, it’s finally transpired that, rightly or wrongly, Julian Assange is to be extradited.
Priti pathetic has ruled that it can go ahead, so it must be incompetent!
What she should have done was insist that Anne Sacoolas, who allegedly ran down and killed an English motorcyclist before sneaking back home to the good old US of A under the pretence of diplomatic immunity, was sent back as part of this agreement to stand trial over that poor boy’s death!
Steve Cunningham
Aberdeen
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel