IF we take Jim Taylor’s definition of a country (Letters, Nov 4), then effectively England and the United Kingdom don’t exist and can’t, as they aren’t financially viable – yet they clearly do exist.

Firstly, if, as Jim implies, it is due to being financially reliant on another country, then Westminster is in debt to other countries and institutions and has been for a long time. In fact, if it weren’t for Scottish oil and gas, Westminster would most likely still be paying off World War One debt and certainly World War Two debt.

READ MORE: This UK Government refuses to act in ‘good faith’ so what now?

Secondly, Westminster has to buy in gas and electricity from Europe, yet Scotland exports both to them. Don’t forget that just a few short weeks ago, under Liz Truss, English MPs were advocating building a new nuclear power station in Scotland to meet English demands for electricity.

We also export food to England as they aren’t self-sufficient. Every time there is a heatwave in England, they want a pipeline built to take water from Scotland, and I’ve been hearing that line from English Conservative MPs for well over 50 years now!

As for the block grant, Scotland actually contributes more to the exchequer than it gets back in the grant. Independent political analysts also think that if Scotland becomes independent, we will be in the G7 grouping within a short time due to our balance of trade whereas England/rUK, will drop to about 17th in the G20 – and that was before Brexit started to take effect.

READ MORE: How long will Scotland have to use the pound after independence?

If we look at it from another perspective, we have to first ask ourselves what makes a country? Yes, Scotland and England share some history, as does Scotland and the United Kingdom as we are a part of it, but we also have our own separate history, customs, languages, dress, music, and culture as distinct from England and the UK. We also have our own church, legal system and education system, which are separate from the United Kingdom and can’t be altered by them.

Countries come and go, and they always have throughout history. The one thing that is evident is that you can’t draw a line on a map, or for that matter erase one, and think that the people will cow-tow to an imperialist regime and accept their rule without some sort of say in the matter. At the end of the day, it’s the people who live and work in the country that define if they are a country or not.

As for Derrick McClure (Letters, Nov 4) thinking that I made a “howler” by using “Gross” instead of “Great” to describe Britain, he should realise that the word great is not in the Latin vocabulary. The nearest word would be “Grandis” and means large; great; tall; old or strong. The English translation to Latin for “Gross” is crassus; or thick; large; and dense.  Gross Britannia is used a great deal by historians for Britain in their essays and papers. Also, you don’t translate word for word, you translate more often by context.

Moreover, if he were to actually read up on history, he would discover that there has never been an English king by the name of Edward Longshanks. Longshanks was a common nickname of the period for tall people and Edward I of England was actually Edward Plantagenet. Both he and his nemesis William Wallace, were easily recognised on the battlefield by their height and stature, both standing well over six foot by accounts of the time.

Alexander Potts
Kilmarnock

OF course the Union is voluntary, but you can’t leave it without a vote and we’ll never allow that (signed Sunak, Starmer and Davey).

Robert Fraser
via thenational.scot