I WONDER if there has been any research identifying the benefits to England of Scottish (and Welsh?) independence. In general terms, these would appear to consist of increased clarity and reduced responsibility.

As a non-expert, I’d like to kick off a discussion with these points.

a) England gets its Parliament back to do with as it wishes, with no more appeasement of or interference from those troublesome Scots.

b) There would be new jobs, facilities etc involved in the relocation of the nuclear submarines.

c) A reduction in the workload of the departments charged with controlling Scotland’s resources and receiving Scotland’s taxes and generously handing some back to Scotland. This appears to involve highly complex and intensive civil service work.

d) A reduction in the costs of Scottish politicians and their staff travelling to London and their accommodation there etc.

e) It would clear up the messy business of getting Scottish Government approval of UK bills and visa versa.

f) There would no longer be any arguments about England subsidising Scotland or the other way round, obviating the need for GERS and similar (mis)information.

g) It would reduce the workload of all those offices keeping an eye on, supervising, controlling, and helping Scotland look after itself, eg HMRC, DVLA, UKSC, NAO, MI5 etc.

h) UK ministers would no longer face the prospect of having to trudge north to show face and try to be pleasant to those dour Jocks.

R Millar

Darvel

I HAVE been reading with increasing alarm the urging of various correspondents to have the First Minister provoke an election at Holyrood by suspending the Parliament before the next Westminster election. This is an extremely bad idea which will damage the national cause and only delay the progress of the peoples of Scotland to self-determination.

Its supporters claim the idea means a referendum would take place sooner and that it would be held with a wider and so fairer electorate, magnified by the legislation going through Westminster to pochle the result of a General Election using compulsory voter ID to suppress turnout.

As well as proving a early Christmas present to Unionist critics of the Scottish Government (“why aren’t they getting on with the day job”) and the wasted money having this unnecessary election”, its greatest problem is that it wouldn’t work.

The 28-day limit for a Holyrood election to take place is under present legislation which could be easily replaced by another Westminster bill. They have already done this at Stormont in Belfast. The abstentionism of their DUP friends has been underwritten by the Tory Secretary of State. As usual, Starmer would either agree with such a bill or abstain from a vote on its provisions.

Wouldn’t the first thing our Union Jack, aka the Governor General, would say is that the Scotland Act is obviously out of date and requires “improvement”, “reform” and “modernisation” and that for it to be done properly, it should not be done in haste.

There would follow a very short bill suspending the time limit and probably setting up a Gordon Brown-style commission to kick everything into the longest of grass.

While this was going on, there would be a wrecking ball applied to the standards and progress of life in Scotland, with all previously devolved powers being “temporarily” regained by Westminster.

Once they were gone, why would they risk our having them back? Our opponents are not too bright, but they are not complete idiots either.

David Rowe

Beith

SUPPOSING the next General Election brings an unprecedented 50%-plus vote for independence supporting parties, do we then go back to Westminster with the begging bowl and yet another mandate, for it to be thrown back in our face by this deceitful government, or is there an alternative?

What is the plan, if this ever happens? I do not believe that this or any future Westminster government will ever say the time is right for a referendum on Scottish independence, regardless of what percentage of people in Scotland vote for pro-indy parties.

Is there no way to take our case to the UN, with its Charter on people’s right to self-determination, or some other international body?

Otherwise, we are going to continue this never-ending merry-go-round of voting and rejection for the foreseeable future.

Graham Smith

Arbroath

WHEN Gandhi was seeking independence for India, he did not give up just because the UK said no. Same with the Suffragettes. They did not accept not getting the vote because of Westminster intransigence.

Campaigners against the slave trade did not ignore its immorality because Westminster did.

So why then do Unionists think the Supreme Court ruling and the Tory refusal to countenance a Section 30 will be the end for Scottish independence?

Alan Hinnrichs

Dundee

THE headline on Kevin McKenna’s column read “SNP olive branch to Alba is welcome and vital for a Yes win”(The National, Dec 14). It’s asking a lot of the SNP to hold out the olive branch to the very people who broke it off.

John Jamieson

South Queensferry