Sir, There are two aspects to the separation/independence debate, one hilarious in its absurdity, positing a deprived Scotland dressed in English sackcloth, the other dangerous in its propensity as it implies Scots are the better politicians.
Nothing on offer warrants changing the present system. We have a democracy that works as well as any and better than most. Without it there would be no referendum. Following it there might never be another.
Ironically, those loudest in claiming the “English” Government at Westminster as the source of all our problems forget the very significant Scottish involvement in British government in the past hundred years or so.
What price then Scottish politicians…?
Independence will move power, not to the voter, but from one group of politicians to another with no clear democratic benefit in sight.
Separation from the UK would expose our working democracy to further manipulation by politicians who rate nationalist democracy superior to British democracy, much as many believed national socialism superior to international socialism, with devastating consequences.
We need not expect such calamitous devastation from the separation debate but much of the media and many politicians will revel in the expensive ecstasy of producing words by the million as they participate in the greatest political sham in recent history deciding on how best to dispose of an imaginary Scottish independence.
Andrew Lawson. 9 MacLaren Gardens, Dundee.
Flawed notion of a nation?
Sir, Surely, our notion of a nation is now much grander that our forefathers foresaw?
It comes at a price, however, and as a nation should we not man-up in the face of terrorism? Should we not remember the wise words of Benjamin Franklin?
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
Current Government plans for our security fly in the face of his wisdom. Unfortunately, there is no Churchill among the parliamentarians of today, none who think our people are still of the salt that withstood the Blitz.
They are wrong! We are as courageous as we are tolerant. And we are now more tolerant than at any other time in our history. If we are not prepared to take risks then our notion of a nation must be deeply flawed. Let us show that it is not!
Leslie Milligan. 18b Myrtlehall Gardens, Dundee.
Poorly made argument
Sir, Your report on the provision of religious education in Scotland and the opinions of a Dundee minister are an instance of meaningful juxtaposition. The perfectly sensible and rational petition by certain secularists for an opt-in requirement for religious observance in our schools is juxtaposed with a somewhat poorly argued statement by David Robertson, an illogical proposition that there ought to be separate faith and secular schools rather than the current arrangement in Scotland.
By his argument ad absurdum it follows that a definition of a state school would need to be redefined as “secular” when in reality the very concept of most schools is that they are non-religious, much like the NHS, or public transport or the major utilities and practically all other central institutions, including our universities. Scotland is already a “secular” state.
Does Rev Robertson want to de-secularise reality? His free-market musings and parental choice disguised as diversity and equality effectively cast adrift the commonsense petition that religious observance in our schools should be an opt-in mechanism.
His use of the juxtaposition of secular and religious values serves to muddy the difference between observance and education, as if education is or ought to be somehow a form of religious observance. As a secular humanist I do make the distinction between religious observance and religious education, in the understanding that the latter also includes within the Curriculum for Excellence a provision for moral education, one aspect of learning that I can approve of.
Terry Martin. Dalcrue, Coupar Angus Road, Blairgowrie.
It has worked for generations
Sir, Why do some people wish to change the way religion is taught in our schools? We are after all a Christian nation and have been for thousands of years.
It’s quite simple, a Catholic sends their child to a Catholic school and a protestant sends their child to a protestant one. This system has worked for generation after generation without a problem.
But now some minority group wants to change things for what to me seems to be a very obscure reason, and has no bearing on any beliefs except their own.
Actually, as far as I know, there is no law that states you must send your child to a school where religion is freely available to those who want to learn about it. If the parent doesn’t want any religion being taught to the child, they can opt-out, or the parent can send the child to a school that doesn’t teach anything about religion or religious tolerance if that is what they prefer.
June Reid. 12 Findhorn Street, Fintry, Dundee.
We have our own charities Sir, I am well aware that there is nothing illegal about charities making appeals for donations outside of the area in which they are based, but I think it was a bit out of order that a charity called Coping with Cancer – North East conducted a bag collection in Kirriemuir this week.
When I noticed it was a charity registered in England and Wales I looked it up on the internet and discovered it exists for the benefit of people in the north east of England, ie Northumberland, Durham and Tyneside.
Many people don’t have the time or inclination to read small print and may have been fooled into thinking that filling a bag with “good quality clothing, bed linen, etc”, was helping people here in the north east of Scotland.
This sort of thing really annoys me. We have our own deserving local charities doing this kind of work and they need our support.
Jim Smith. Fairways, Golf Road, Kirriemuir.