Sir, Bill Prentice states (letters, May 20), that he was bemused by my letter which you published on May 6. I am afraid I am equally bemused by his letter.
There can be no doubt that, if Scotland became independent the rest of the UK would be a foreign country so far as Scotland was concerned, and vice versa. There would be a Scottish embassy in London and the rest of the UK would have its embassy in Edinburgh (just as today the UK has an embassy in Dublin).
The question of nationality is more complicated. In the White Paper, Scotland’s Future, there is a section on citizenship. This sets out who would be a Scottish citizen and states that a Scottish citizen could also retain British citizenship. A British citizen born in Scotland but living outside Scotland on day one of independence would automatically be a Scottish citizen.
Both my sons live in England, are British citizens and were born in Scotland. My elder son has one daughter, born in England. My younger son has two daughters, one born in Switzerland and the other born in England. All three girls are British citizens.
As I understand the position none of my granddaughters would be automatically entitled to Scottish citizenship. They would fall into the category of: “British national living outside Scotland with at least one parent who qualifies for Scottish citizenship.”
The White Paper provides that such a person would be able to register as a Scottish citizen but would “need to provide evidence to substantiate” (whatever that may mean).
This seems to make it clear that, like it or not, I as a Scottish citizen would have granddaughters who were British citizens, not Scottish citizens, and therefore citizens of a foreign country, ie foreigners. I do not know the position of Mr Prentice’s children and grandchildren, but I suspect it would be similar.
Mr Prentice asks if I have a problem with foreigners if they are not British. I can assure him that I am not in the slightest xenophobic, but I should still prefer that my grandchildren grew up in a country of which both they and I were citizens.
Alastair Stewart. 86 Albany Road, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
Don’t interpret silence as tacit support . . .
Sir, Scotland is justifiably proud of its universities, its medical schools and its profile in health-related and biomedical research. In 2013-14 the respected QS World Ranking system placed 18 UK universities in its top 100, three of them in Scotland.
In life sciences and medicine, three Scottish universities were ranked in the top 100 along with 12 other UK universities.
Scottish medical schools also do consistently well in UK comparisons and have particular research strengths in areas such as cancer, heart disease, hospital-based clinical medicine, inflammatory disease, mental health and health services research.
Such success in an internationally competitive research environment reflects Scotland’s long-standing commitment to quality higher education and the determination of its universities to train, recruit and retain the very best doctors and biomedical scientists.
In the run-up to September’s referendum there has been much debate about whether an independent Scotland could maintain the research income from UK sources such as the Research Councils and health-related charities and upon which so much of its success depends.
If Scotland were to withdraw from the UK and create its own Scottish Research Council our research community would be denied its present ability to win proportionately more grant funding than the country contributes to a common research pool.
In the debate about independence it is ironic that Scottish Government is able to speak freely while the heads of our leading research universities (and the umbrella organisation Universities Scotland) and our premier learned society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, have to date felt obliged to remain neutral because they receive Scottish Government funding.
Their silence should not be interpreted as evidence of tacit support for independence on the part of the life sciences research community.
We contend that Scotland’s research interests will be much better served by remaining within the common research area called the United Kingdom.
Professor Dario Alessi,Professor Jean Beggs,Professor Colin Bird,Professor Sir Adrian Bird, Sir David Carter,Professor John Coggins, Professor Richard Cogdell, Professor Sir Philip Cohen,Professor James Garden, Professor Neva Haites, Professor Nicholas Hastie, Professor Wilson Sibbett, Professor Karen Vousden, Professor Roland Wolf.
Rather dubious assumptions
Sir, George K McMillan (letters May 20), makes the dubious assumption that after a “yes” vote the rest of the UK will have permanent Conservative governments. The way Westminster works is that the Tories and Labour take it in turns to run the country. Each stays in power until they screw up badly. This won’t change.
He also assumes that an independent Scotland will be run by the SNP. There is a lot of Conservative support in Scotland which will have a stronger voice after independence because it will no longer be tied to Westminster.
It is a brave man indeed who predicts which parties will be in power in an independent Scotland, but we can be certain that the government will be the choice of the people who live here.
Andrew Collins. Skinners Steps, Cupar.