Sir, Scotland has been a united country with a patriotic population working together for the common good for more than 200 years, with the last occasion when the Scottish people were seriously divided being the Jacobite uprising of 1745. Alex Salmond, however, has succeeded in dividing them once more, fundamentally and possibly irrevocably.
Whatever the result of the referendum, the bitterness between the two opposing factions will inevitably linger long into the future and poison relationships between Scots.
And for what purpose? The vast majority of Scots welcomed devolution and have been happy, generally, with the way it has worked out.
They accept that there might be advantages in some extension of devolved powers but they regard these as comparatively marginal and certainly not requiring the cataclysmic upheaval separation would mean.
The legacy of this totally unnecessary, hugely costly and utterly divisive exercise will have a very long-lasting effect, whatever the outcome. If the result is separation and the disintegration of the United Kingdom, the result will be devastating, not only to Scottish life and the Scottish economy but to the whole country. The entire exercise is wasteful and unnecessary, diverting scarce resources which could be put to much better use, and distracting from matters really in need of serious attention.
Devolution has given Scots the best of both worlds. Public surveys have shown that support for separation is almost universally based on the belief that it would bring economic benefits but, considering the total vagueness of the SNP proposals, the result is much more likely to be a severe financial loss for the people of Scotland.
In the end, if Mr Salmond fails to achieve his ambition of separation, history will see him not as a hero, but as a power-hungry individual who gambled recklessly with the future of our children and grandchildren. If he succeeds, it will see him as the man who brought the United Kingdom from its present position as one of the leading countries in the world to two inconsequential little countries on the outer edge of Europe with no international standing and no influence anywhere.
J E D Cormie. 4 Craiglea Road, Perth.
Country ready, are the people?
Sir, People complain that they can’t get “the facts” or “the truth” about the referendum and Scotland’s future, but nobody can tell with any certainty what the future holds. I would suggest we look at where we are now and take things from there.
Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world; a beautiful country with underdeveloped tourist potential; with massive energy resources (oil, hydro, wind, tide, coal); a highly educated population and some of the best universities in the world.
It also has a favourable climate; top-quality produce, eg beef, shellfish, salmon, whisky; highly skilled industry exporting all over the world and a huge diaspora and much goodwill in the world.
We are a stable democratic country with an excellent infrastructure and an existing parliament which has proved its worth since its establishment in 1999, and which could provide a stable foundation for independent government were the country to vote “yes”.
One thing that is clear is that Scotland could take its place as an independent country in the world. The Scottish people must decide whether they want to seize the opportunity.
Les Mackay. 5 Carmichael Gardens, Dundee.
We must stop this trade deal
Sir, It’s a basic principle of democracy that governments should be able to make decisions in the interests of the people who elected them. But the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being negotiated between the US and the EU puts this principle under serious threat.
This trade deal aims to set up a secretive “court” in which multinational companies can sue governments if they think a law might harm their profits. For example, a tobacco company is currently using a similar court to sue the Australian government for billions of pounds because Australia introduced plain packaging for cigarettes.
I want the UK Government to be able make laws to protect the people of this country, so I have joined the World Development Movement’s campaign to stop the deal.
Deb Brown. 87 Magdalen Yard Road, Dundee.
Comments not widely reported
Sir, I refer to the letter from Mr Joseph A Peterson Hate crime slip-up by Lord Advocate? published on June 17. Mr Peterson rightly focuses on the increase in disability hate crime. This is an issue the Lord Advocate highlighted in a number of interviews he gave following publication of the statistics for 2014 on hate crime and the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act. Unfortunately, these comments were not widely reported, therefore, it is understandable if your reader was unaware of them.
The Lord Advocate considers disability hate crime to be a matter of utmost importance which is why he recently highlighted the historic under-reporting of this insidious crime.
Mr Mulholland did this with a view to giving victims the confidence to report such behaviour to the police either by the victim or through third party reporting centres.
The Crown Office held a conference at Hampden in Glasgow earlier this year which focused on disability hate crime to highlight the problem that Mr Peterson rightly raises.
The Lord Advocate will continue to speak out on this important area.
Catriona Dalrymple. Head of Policy Division, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 25 Chambers Street, Edinburgh.