IN the 19th century some believed the source of anger was the spleen. Today we know it is part of the brain, with some people being able to exert more self-control in their anger management than others. Regrettably it is the latter for some of your letter writers who favour the Union and are “venting their spleen” by turning analysis into an art form of pure nonsense, accompanied by real envy at the success of their opponents. Permit me to join in with some facts. Scott Macintosh (Letters, May 13) says “democracy should begin at home. Let’s start with respecting the will of the 50.4 per cent who voted for parties opposed to another independence referendum.” It may have escaped Mr Macintosh’s notice that the Scottish Parliamentary election was not a vote-based referendum, but an election based on seats on a system imposed by Westminster – a system they dare not use themselves in Scotland. Mr Macintosh and others should currently be rejoicing that the Westminster “
ANDREW Turnbull (Letters, May 10) made some pertinent points about the importance of preserving Scotland’s languages and dialects, and I’m sorry to see that Celia Judge (Letters, May 11) profoundly disagrees. We in the West protest about China’s treatment of the Uighurs and her efforts to impose a Han Chinese monoculture in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong. But that’s exactly what Britain did in its imperial glory days, and traces of that remain. One aspect of that policy was the renaming of places and people to make them sound more British. The most famous example is probably Nelson Mandela, who became Nelson only after he was given that fine British name on his first day at school.
I HAVE no wish whatsoever for Scotland to become independent, however I have no doubt in my mind that a fair proportion of the Scottish population wishes it to be so. The last referendum was held using poorly-defined wording on the actual vote, and no clear timetable as to the lifetime on the decision of that vote; one generation is far too loose a definition. All sides in Scotland must sit down and agree on the voting procedures, in particular deciding the percentage of the vote, not just a straight first-past-the-post vote, required to decide the final outcome, and how long should pass before another referendum on independence is to be held.
Scottish Secretary Alister Jack is backing the UK Government’s challenge to two Holyrood bills which incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Scottish Law. PETER A Russell s letter (May 4) is more telling for what he doesn’t say than what he does. His criticism of Alan Morris amounts to pointing out that after 2014 we got the Smith Commission and the 2016 Scotland Act. It would be easy to point out that in that same year we also got Brexit, and as Sir Tom Devine says: “I cannot recall any issue of such magnitude since 1707 [the Act of Union] where the manifest will of the Scottish people, as confirmed explicitly by virtually all the nation’s MPs in the UK Parliament, and overwhelmingly by a democratic vote in a UK referendum, was not only rejected, but treated with such brazen contempt by a British Government.”
Scotland s EU exit in January was lamented by many. Would independence turn out to be a more painful blow? Picture: Colin Mearns THE SNP cites Brexit and its negative impact on international trade between Scotland and the EU as its justification for another referendum on Scottish independence. Our company is a Scottish-based manufacturing business in the plastics sector that exports the majority of its products, much of them to the EU. We have now had four months’ experience of Brexit. In many respects, the SNP is absolutely right. Brexit has caused delays, administrative headaches and extra cost, but both we and our customers are getting used to the new arrangements, have adjusted our systems and costings accordingly, and are getting back down to business.