MARTIN Geissler says that if we had voted Yes in 2014 Scotland would be in a worse state as we would be linked to the pound (‘Indy Scotland would be in the mire’ claim attacked, Oct 3).
What a load of dingo’s kidneys. Eight years have passed. In that time an independent Scotland would have: rejoined the EU; chosen its own currency; handled the Covid crisis far better than it was able to shackled to the UK; be well on the way to generating decent income from its natural resources; and be implementing a massive range of infrastructure and other improvements. We would also be bringing in more money from an energised tourist trade – wow, who wouldn’t like to visit a newly independent country? Shona Robison was right to point out that we would be doing something similar to what Ireland are planning, but only more so.
READ MORE: Liz Truss: Independence referendum shouldn't happen even if Supreme Court deems it legal
Down south is the problem. England, with or without Wales and Northern Ireland, would have gone one of two ways.
One, continued on its weary journey out of the EU, with the Tories hanging in there, becoming more extreme with inequality increasing and poverty worsening as England tried to manage without the resources of Scotland to lean on.
Or two, the shock of the UK “losing” Scotland would have forced the Tories out, and (here we enter the realm of wishful thinking) a Labour/LibDem/Green coalition would have rejigged Westminster, brought in proportional representation, finally phased out the Lords, and just begun to rebuild a sustainable economy based on its true worth.
Martin Geissler, like many Unionists, has no imagination. Does he really think an independent Scotland would have continued as if still part of of the UK?
The whole point of Scotland becoming independent is to run the country the way the people of Scotland wants to run the country. What Geissler and the rest of the BBC Scotland are terrified to ask is this: “We can’t go back to 2014, but if Scotland were to become independent as soon as possible, what would the new Scottish Government do?”
Noel Chidwick
Edinburgh
HAVING enjoyed the National’s coverage of the AUOB rally in Edinburgh I purchased the Monday edition of Edinburgh’s local paper to see what they’d made of it. After all, more than 7,000 Scots from all walks of life, and ages, and from widespread areas of Scotland marching along the Royal Mile in the cause of independence must surely be newsworthy? You’d think so, particularly given the overwhelming coverage of just a few royals ambling up the thoroughfare to attend a family funeral.
Nothing! Zilch! Zero! Nada!
As far as this local media paragon is concerned, it didn’t happen. Neither did any of the other protests and rallies held on the same day, including the Enough is Enough rally at the UK Consulate, posing as the UK Government office.
READ MORE: BBC News covers protests across UK – but not Scottish independence march
Curiously this local journal claims it is “built on a tradition of accuracy and fairness”; that it gives us “the information to understand our world; that it is “holding power to account and exposing injustice”; that its “ trusted brand means we are the only place where you can read and participate in honest debates”; and that “we are committed to giving a voice to those who struggle to be heard as well those whose profession is crafting the argument”.
Yet, despite this so-called readers’ charter the absolute opposite is the truth. Failing/refusing to report the argument and debate about independence as expressed through these organised protests and against Westminster government-inflicted hardship policies discriminating against the poorest in our society completely negates the very “Readers’ charter” this organ claims to up hold. It is a naked hypocrisy – a downright lie!
Doesn’t this demonstrate the scale of the mountain Scots for independence face? Doesn’t the media ignoring the struggle like this suggest to the undecided that the argument is baseless, not to be considered, when the very opposite is true and important?
READ MORE: Scots gather in Edinburgh for AUOB march for independence
And don’t they think/hope their readers will accept their flawed and biased premise?
Isn’t it galling that those who would claim to support debate work to close that debate down, those who claim fairness act so unfairly and those who preach democracy deny that very right to democracy, fearful of the unpalatable but justified defeat that would be brought to bear on them?
This hypocrisy is what the UK and its media-controlled establishment has descended to. The very hypocrisy that is fanning the flames of independence, to put an end to control by the majority of our corrupt media and restore Scotland’s pride and ambitions for the fairer, more prosperous future such media would deny them.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
UTTERLY contemptible behaviour from the state propaganda machine, but not surprised at all. They do not want to tell Scottish people just how many people in Scotland want independence. Soviet-era stuff.
Tim Warner
via thenational.scot
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