Readers' Letters: The decision was made in 2014 – get over it

The world is experiencing considerable turmoil with madmen Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump trying to change world orders. We are being warned daily that threats to the United Kingdom, especially from the east, are horrific and extremely worrying. And the SNP wants destroy the UK!

The SNP has no credible economic, financial and defence plans to show how an independent Scotland would be successful, with Scots better off, and considering breaking-up the United Kingdom is madness. Scotland has suffered 20 years of this dire nationalist regime where virtually every precious Scottish institution has been trashed – calling for a referendum is simply a distraction from desperate politicians. There may be an independence majority in Holyrood but there is is NO voting majority. The decision was made in 2014 – get over it.

Putin must be laughing his head off at Nats doing his job in trying to destroy the United Kingdom – utter madness.

Douglas Cowe, Newmachar, Aberdeenshire

Power to whom?

I was intrigued by Stan Grodynski’s letter (16 September) regarding the inevitability – and indeed, desirability – of Scottish independence. I fear Mr Grodynski, like many nationalists, is probably not open to reason on the matter, but let us try.

Firstly, whatever the changes in votes since the last referendum a mere ten or so years ago, Mr Grodynski’s side lost. I don’t remember any statement at the time that the game must be replayed until the “right” result was arrived at. Indeed, I seem to remember we were told this was “the” opportunity. Despite that – and let us repeat it – the referendum was lost.

My point is, however, the strange delusion that most nationalists seem to have that this is about power and decision-making for the people of Scotland. It is not. It is about power and decision-making for senior members of the SNP, their cronies and the ever-expanding bureaucracy at their beck and call. One of its first acts on coming into power was to freeze council tax, thus removing the one independent lever of revenue raising councils had. It has systemically hacked at local government ever since.

Perhaps Mr Grodynski could instance one example of where the SNP have actually devolved real power to the people and communities of Scotland? I am, I am afraid, stuck. The “independence” they trumpet is in precisely the same league as the independence of North Korea, Uzbekistan or Venezuela – the freedom to be told what to do.

Hugh Andrew, Edinburgh

Just the facts

Stan Grodynski writs to tell us yet again that independence is just around the corner and the result is in the bag. He bases this once more on some pretty dubious polling, because all polling is pretty dubious and the only result that matters is an actual vote which, in case he's forgotten, was in favour of the Union.

He justifies his position not on facts but on some imaginary emotive sentiment with little in the way of detail, much like John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon. I note he specifically mentions the retainment of UK pensions post independence. He may well be right but he just does not know that for a fact because it would be subject to a Scexit negotiation, not a given, and if we have learnt anything from Brexit, that is a very big assumption to make. Why would a detested and probably bitter foreign government want to make life easy for a breakaway state.

So perhaps Mr Grodynski could make his next letter one of detail of the future fiscal and economic case for Independence. The last guy that tried that, Andrew Wilson, concluded we faced 10-20 years of austerity. In fact his report was so damning that the Independence movement has struck it from the record. So come on Stan, give us your best shot, with actual detail and facts, not heart-stirring words of milk and honey.

Ian McNair, Cellardyke, Fife

Fair fight?

If those obsessively intent on breaking up the UK get their way and manage to force a second referendum upon the people of Scotland, some things should not need saying. They have already had a “once in a lifetime” referendum on the subject. The day after they lost that, the nationalists – as we all knew they would – began their campaign for a second.

In the 2014 referendum they were given every possible advantage and then some. They had the crucial choice of the wording of the question and the “Yes” option. They were given the date, which they chose to coincide with an ancient battle against the English. Then they had the choice of the age of the voters. They were allowed to bar Scottish-born people who had moved to other parts of the UK for work or marriage. All these advantages and more were meekly handed over. And still, even after all the concessions, they were thumped.

And so, if we are forced to endure another, we must have international judges of fairness and probity supervising the whole business. A minimum 50-year ban on another. We have seen SNP “fairness” and supervision of our affairs in the past.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Close call

Alastair Neilson bemoans the Scottish voting system as being flawed because it awarded 56 per cent of the seats to the SNP/Greens based on 40 per cent of the vote (Letters, 15 September).

However, if we used the UK-approved First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system only, for all seats, instead of the Constituency/Regional voting system, the SNP/Greens could have won 80 per cent of the seats (roughly 103) for just 40 per cent of the vote.

So which is the flawed system?

However, I agree with his other comment that a referendum vote is a direct Yes/No, effectively as if for a single candidate. It is a fact that polls on people’s views on independence consistently hover between 40-50 per cent, similar to the percentages of votes for pro-independence parties in the constituency vote. So not a settled majority for independence, but not an overwhelming vote against either.

David Morris, Dalkeith, Midlothian

Flight-mare

Donald Trump has dismissed the AI threat as “a conspiracy”. The conclusion must be that it is an important revenue stream for him.

To have Trump supporting its continued unrestricted development is the opposite of reassuring. The great majority of the population have no inkling of the vast sophistication and complexity of the layers of software development and cleverness that goes into AI, and the means whereby it might escape its sandpit and act autonomously to do us damage.

But it can be easily grasped that it doesn't have to attain this ultimate ability when there are those that would unlock the door for it. In this past week we have seen the 25th anniversary of the Twin Towers atrocity, which clearly demonstrated the evil intent that is out there, and an instance of a glitch in a flight plan logged by a British military aircraft which disrupted UK air traffic control for two days and caused chaos.

Just imagine if an AI-literate malicious organisation enabled AI to hack air traffic control worldwide on a continual basis – no flights, no trade, chaos and ultimately, strife and starvation. And there must be plenty of other avenues of permanent disruption. So security measures against malicious use are urgently needed.

Ken Gow, Bridge of Canny, Banchory, Aberdeenshire

AI, right?

What on earth is a delivery robot (“Call for ban on delivery robots”, 16 September)? Between robots and AI there will soon be no need for human beings. It is becoming ludicrous.

Mhairi Blair, Greenock, Inverclyde

Take responsibility

Andrew HN Gray (Letters, 12 September) should do us all a favour by cutting out his ranting about droughts destroying ancient civilisations and sit down with pencil and paper and calculate how much his own fossil fuel CO2 emissions have contributed to the 20 per cent destruction of British agriculture by the recent summer droughts. Then he would begin to understand what was going on in the world.

I wrote 30 years ago that everyone could do a calculation for themselves to give them an idea how much they were personally warming the planet, but no-one was interested.

Henryk Belda, Fairmilehead, Edinburgh

Trump’s folly

I refer to your article of September 14, “Trump urges Ukraine to halt strikes causing Russian fuel shortages”. The West is now seeing weekly pump-price hikes for diesel, with £2/litre approaching fast. And that level will not fall any time soon, causing significant, persistent food-price inflation (after all, what do tractors and trawlers run on ?).

I can only suggest that since the USA supplies the satellite data for such boomerang strikes through Elon Musk's Starlink, Trump act immediately to stop that. For his own sake, before a vengeful US electorate has its say in the November mid-term elections. After all, “it's the economy, stoopid!”

George Morton, Rosyth, 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.