Sir, – Gerald Marshall (Denying people their birthright, Courier, July 9) raises an important point about whether UK citizens in an independent Scotland could retain their UK citizenship and passport.
However, in directing his questions at the SNP he chose the wrong target. The SNP’s proposals for an independent Scotland, Scotland’s Future, stated that dual citizenship would be allowed.
People resident in Scotland would be entitled to Scottish citizenship, but could retain British citizenship.
The UK does allow dual citizenship, but refused to say whether that would apply to Scotland, preferring to leave doubt and confusion in Scottish voters’ minds in the hope this would make them more wary of independence.
It is therefore the UK Government which should answer the important questions Mr Marshall raises.
Making “others secede against their will”, as Mr Marshall puts it, is certainly troublesome, but the UK has done that to us with Brexit.
If independence comes I hope that a Scottish Government will be far more sensitive and responsible than this UK Government, which crassly celebrated the removal of our rights.
James Christie.
2 Dryburgh Crescent,
Perth.
Grateful for what exactly?
Sir, – I keep hearing and reading we should be grateful for the very presence of Nicola Sturgeon, but nobody seems to be able to offer any good reason why.
A total of 2,490 people have lost their lives to this virus.
That is 0.05% of the population and our economy has been closed down.
Livelihoods lost, education abandoned and, crucially, medical treatment withheld.
We should be grateful for that?
Approximately 32,700 Scots are diagnosed with cancer every year and 16,200 die.
Cancer screening was reduced by 70% in April and remains 30% below normal levels four months later.
Cancer survival increases hugely with early diagnosis, but that opportunity has been withheld for thousands of Scots. Why should we be grateful for that?
We’re doing so much better than the evil Tories of Westminster, are we?
Scotland has tested 286,000 people, roughly 5% of our population.
England has tested 8,400,000 people, 15% of the population. Why should Scots be grateful?
This virus poses no threat to children, yet schools remain shut.
This virus poses minimal threat to healthy people of working age, including teachers, yet businesses remain shut and many will not reopen.
This virus poses a more substantial threat to the elderly and unwell, yet the elderly were removed from hospitals and other medical services were reduced or suspended.
Face coverings pose a genuine threat to health if they are worn for a prolonged period and not regularly replaced or cleaned and stored in a sterile environment.
They offer minimal, if any, protection from this virus, yet we are now obliged to wear one.
Every step of the way, Sturgeon has made the same errors as Westminster, the only difference is timing.
Yet Westminster is to be damned and we should be grateful for Sturgeon.
Aye, right.
Hamish Hossick.
76H Strathern Road,
Broughty Ferry.
Showing their true colours
Sir, – What hypocrites the SNP politicians are!
I always believed that their sole aim is for Scottish independence. Presumably that means that they wish to cut off relations with the UK?
However, during the current crisis caused by coronavirus, Scotland has received tremendous financial assistance from Westminster; at the height of the pandemic this totalled £4.6 billion.
So much then for the ideals pronounced in the SNP manifesto.
In addition, Scotland has received £800 million through the Barnett Formula.
Finance Secretary Kate Forbes appears to be the chief malcontent, but I suspect she is fronting for the first minister.
And at Westminster the SNP representatives continue to moan and groan, led by their conductor Ian Blackford.
To any reasonable person this whole charade is unacceptable.
For a political party with really only one objective – independence from the UK – they certainly are showing their true colours during the current crisis.
Robert I G Scott.
Northfield,
Ceres, Fife.
Put costs burden on protesters
Sir, – Recent protests and demonstrations have cost the taxpayer millions in cleaning, compensation and repairing costs.
Our authorities seem helpless to do anything about this.
As this is a democratic country, citizens have the right to demonstrate, petition and protest, but they do not have the right to inconvenience the general public going about their lawful business.
And nor does our democratic system confer immunity from punishment, retribution or repayment if they damage property, impede traffic or leave streets covered in litter and worse.
If not already in place, there should be a law prohibiting protest marches or demonstrations unless the organisers have first gained permission for their action from the local authorities affected.
Once that permission has been granted, the authorities should be able to demand a deposit to cover possible damage from acts such as littering etcetera.
This could also include the cost of policing the events.
The size of the deposit should depend on how well-behaved followers joining in that demonstration were last time they took such action.
At the end of the protest, any costs incurred from policing to criminal damage to littering should be deducted from the deposit.
If no such offences are committed, then the organisers need only meet the costs of policing and they will be reduced in the authorities’ next claim for a deposit
Such action would not eliminate the disgraceful scenes we have witnessed in the past few years.
But it would go a long way to discouraging them in the future.
Okay young ‘uns, if you really wish to be led by the nose by extremists with a secret political agenda, go ahead.
But it’s going to cost you – not the taxpayer!
George K McMillan.
Mount Tabor Avenue,
Perth.
