Readers’ letters: A divided island is an unnatural condition

I suggest those amongst us still hankering after a healthy, wealthy, peaceful and long lasting independence should look around and learn the painful truth: there are no politically divided islands where both sides are fully sovereign, the populace content and the relationship long lasting. In other words, a divided island is an unnatural condition.

Some divided islands, as in the case of Cyprus, survive for only as long as an outside force obliges it. Our long history with Ireland provides a classic example of the perils of a division.

Successful islands are united from end to end. New Zealand, for example.

Another referendum here will have the same result because most of us are grown up and face the facts. We’d rather a Great Britain, warts and all, than a Little Alba. Let those who think otherwise and want Indyref2, fund it.

Tim Flinn, Edinburgh

Stay united

I gather that the new Prime Minister is being urged to consider the implementation of more devolution. Presumably that would entail forming regional administrations, similar to what was originally envisaged in Scotland by the Labour/Liberal alliance all these years ago in 1998 when the Scottish Executive was created by Donald Dewar and his team.

The key points which have been learned from the experience in Scotland are that such a political change opens a door to extremist political parties, such as we have in these northern climes in the form of the SNP, and its unelected partners in the form of the Greens.

If, for example, it was decided at Westminster that regional executives might be formed in, say, North-West and North-East England on the same basis as the Scottish Executive, then any approval would require to ensure that this could not lead to the same political mess that Scotland is under a party seeking devolution.

It is obvious that the Scottish experience has proved diabolical for all non-SNP voters. For far too long we have been subjected to the propaganda of SNP meetings, conferences, tartan-clad supporters at rallies and marches, and an array of leaders spouting the same venom against Westminster.

In global terms it has to be realised that the UK is now a minor player. Gone are the days of the British Empire. Under such circumstances surely it is important that this island group, off the coastline of Europe, should remain united.

Robert IG Scott, Ceres, Fife

Crucial question

No doubt many readers were bemused by Ni Holmes rather grandly referring to “the crucial matter of Scottish independence” (Letters, 23 July).

On what grounds can this use of the word “crucial” be justified? The matter was certainly not crucial to 58.2 per cent of those who actually bothered to vote in the recent Holyrood election and backed unionist parties.

Nor can it have been “crucial” to a politically disengaged 47 per cent of the electorate, who evidently had more important things to do on polling day than cast a ballot.

The uncomfortable fact that the SNP now has just eight MPs might also suggest that dismembering the UK isn’t a priority for most of “the people of Scotland”. The majority do not share an aspiration of existing in a bankrupt nationalist “Green” dystopia, where those of us who work hard to earn and create wealth would have it removed to be “redistributed” among the cast of Trainspotting.

Ni Holmes may point to certain opinion polls regularly seized upon by the separatist propaganda machine. But ultimately it is votes which are the best indicator of the public mood, not which individuals some pollsters choose to question.

Martin O’Gorman, Edinburgh

Give it a rest

John Swinney was on the radio yesterday morning saying that he has a mandate for another referendum because he was elected First Minister.

Before the recent Holyrood election he said a mandate would apply if the SNP won a majority of seats, which did not happen. Stop moaning John, give it a rest, the issue is not important to most people.

William Ballantine, Bo’ness, West Lothian

One route

Anas Sarwar is vacating his job as leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and heading, instead, to that same House of Lords that both he and his new leader in London said should be dumped.

Does this, indeed, confirm what’s often been said by supporters of Scotland’s independence – that “all roads lead to Westminster”?

Ian Waugh, Dumfries

Electoral reform

The volatile political situation has led to a revival of interest in electoral reform. Unfortunately, the enthusiasts are still holding out for proportional representation and they decry transferable voting as offering no substantial change.

PR would take us only half way towards a useful system. It returns MPs in proportion to support for the various parties, but how do we get from there to a single government and set of policies? This would be done through horse trading behind closed doors in what would once have been smoke-filled rooms. The result would be something no one has voted for and which few of those who voted for any of the coalition partners may want.

Having extra seats for the smaller parties may offer a congenial lifestyle for their MPs, but it gives them either no influence (if another party holds an overall majority) or excessive influence (if they happen to hold the balance of power). In contrast, systems where votes can be transferred offer a good chance of government by a single party based on a known manifesto. At the same time, that government is likely to better reflect the overall spread of opinion.

Why then was such a system so roundly defeated in the 2011 referendum on electoral reform? In those days the great majority of voters were more or less content with either the Conservatives or Labour. Another 15 years of disillusionment has put paid to that.

We now have multiple parties each with substantial support. Yet the present system essentially treats a vote for any except the two leading parties as an abstention. For the next government to have legitimacy we need a system which gives supporters of the other parties a say, through their second choice, in the contest between the two front runners. That system will favour parties who reach out for those second choices without alienating their core voters.

John Riseley, Harrogate, North Yorkshire

Heritage threat

Recent fires have wreaked havoc in the very heart of our historic Scottish cities. These events beg us to ask the question. Is our national heritage under threat from a government that is failing in its duty to protect our historic buildings and royal parks? Glasgow and Edinburgh have once again succumbed to the all-consuming devastation of fire. Indeed, it seems no lessons have been learned by the so-called guardians of our cities, as repeated infernos appear on our television screens.

Holyrood Park, again in flames after a similar fire two years ago. What has changed?

We need the implementation of substantial fines by our park rangers for those who ride roughshod over our by-laws. Indeed, the introduction of tougher restrictions on ultra-liberal recreation where the irresponsible thrive. I use the park as a local and have seen the remnants of blackened throwaway barbecues littering this beautiful jewel of which Edinburgh can be justly proud.

Then we watch in horror as the former Debenham’s structure is destroyed on our beloved Princes Street. Glasgow’s recent devastation seems to have rung no alarm bells in the debating chambers of our sleeping leadership. We will wait for the results of usual post-devastation inquest, a result that will not doubt admonish those responsible.

Patrick Barrins, Edinburgh

Sad demise

It wasn’t so many years ago that the village of Newbridge by the junction of the M8 and M9 had a bank, a sub-post office/corner shop and a pub. Now all three are gone.

The RBS branch was, of course, a victim of the internet. It is a wonder that the sub-post office survived so long.

The historic Newbridge Inn, which still has the date 1683 proudly above its locked door, is a different matter. Like so many pubs it was not a victim of anything inevitable, but of a purblind political and bureaucratic class who view the private sector and especially small business as the enemy.

What exactly killed this pub, we can’t say. The obsession with ratcheting up alcohol prices ever higher, while ignoring the vastly greater social harms of drug addiction, must be one contributory factor.

All the taxes assailing a business with narrow margins – VAT, employers’ national insurance contributions, rates, insurance premium tax, landfill tax, climate levies, etc must have played their part. The burden of discrimination and minimum wage legislation must be another factor.

Westminster and Holyrood’s overreaction to Covid killed a great many businesses (contrast the much more limited government action in Sweden). Not to forget the high energy costs caused by the establishment’s obsession with net zero.

You may not lament the loss of our pubs, but most of these factors are gnawing away at the rest of our private sector, and with it at our children’s future.

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.