Scotland’s decision must be final and without compromise

HAPPILY, the campaign for Scottish independence has so far been free of violence of the sort that accompanied many of our former colonies, most notably the road to Irish independence where the tragic consequences for many Northern Ireland citizens linger to this day.

It will be a sad day if Scotland votes to leave the United Kingdom but, for better or worse, that will be their decision. Nevertheless, with the forthcoming referendum on the subject, I feel it is in the interests of all parties to know how deeply the desire for independence runs amongst the whole Scottish population or is it mainly the personal obsession of Alex Salmond and his Nationalist supporters?

What the rest of us don’t want to be left with, especially the English, is a situation comparable to a know-all teenager who leaves home but expects to cling to the benefits of home life and perhaps return later to blame the parents if it all ends in tears.

To achieve an objective judgement, I suggest all UK politicians in their official capacities should refrain campaigning positively in favour of continued union and simply set out the facts and terms for Scottish independence.

That way, there should be no post-referendum arguments about what the Scots voted for.

What should be avoided at all costs is economic bribery to maintain the Union because blackmailers always come back for more. That doesn’t preclude our politicians from expressing personal opinions if that is possible without the media circus distorting them as official policies.

The first bone of contention has proved to be the continued use of the UK pound as their currency. Amazingly for the first time in recent history, all three leaders of the main political parties representing the vast majority of the UK population are in agreement and that will not happen.

Alex Salmond doesn’t like it and then talks of joining the European Union. There is no certainty an independent Scotland will be accepted but if they are, that begs the question what is his idea of “independence”?

The next question concerns citizenship.

Would the newly independent Scots renounce their British citizenship out of national pride or will they expect to continue with dual nationality and have it both ways? Remember the cost of giving all Indians British citizenship at their independence?

That raises questions on immigration, either legal or illegal.

Given the flood of illegal immigration into the UK, it would require a clearly defined policed border between Scotland and England to reliably control it.

There are many other questions to be asked like would our Queen wish to continue as monarch of Scotland or might Mr Salmond’s next move be to press for a republic?

Have the Shetlanders in whose territorial waters the bulk of the North Sea oil lies been consulted on their wishes? Some years ago when I was working at Sullom Voe, their sentiments were to join up with Norway if the UK ever broke up. If Scotland votes for independence, then let it be so – absolute, complete with no strings attached and no mish-mash compromises like those in the early years of the Irish Free State.

From: B Gorton, Mill Lane, South Elmsall, Pontefract, West Yorkshire.

THERE are two problems for European Commission president Manuel Barroso if Scotland decides to go independent. He says that they will have to apply to join the EU, but surely they’d first have to apply to leave because they are currently in. Not as a separate entity, it’s true, but Glasgow and the people of Scotland are in the EU right now, as anybody can tell you.

Secondly, and of more concern, is the problem of contributions to EU funds.

At the moment, Britain gives many billions to the EU. If Scotland were to leave Britain and be ordered out of the EU as Barroso appears to prefer, then Scotland’s proportion of Britain’s contribution would be forfeited.

You can’t realistically expect England, Wales and Northern Ireland to keep on paying Scotland’s part (especially as Scotland would no longer be anything to do with the EU, and Scotland would be a separate country nothing to do with England) so the British Prime Minister would be obliged to re-negotiate Britain’s donation to EU coffers – in a downward direction.

While I don’t have a high opinion of politicians’ intellect or integrity, even they must realise they could not be seen to get walked all over by the EU in these negotiations, particularly bearing in mind the prevailing mood of the British people towards the EU, and it would be disastrous 
for any politician’s political career if they caved in and accepted a raw deal.

So Scotland’s exclusion from the EU would immediately mean a huge reduction in EU funds as a direct consequence.

I wonder if Manuel Barroso has factored these considerations into his thinking.