Letters: One year on, the case for staying in the Union has not been made

And it must be another huge benefit to Scottish business that Westminster has signed up to a European trade deal with Canada without requesting any protection for the many Scottish products and exports that enjoy Geographical Indication status, while other European countries are silly enough to have ensured their product status is protected. What a benefit when Canadian companies begin selling imitations under the banner of “Scottish”.

Yet another benefit he could have highlighted is the exclusion of Humza Yousef from the delegation to the UN Summit on Sustainable Development, since it should be obvious to us all that a Westminster official is far better able to put Scotland’s views than our own elected representative, within whose remit this subject falls.

Meanwhile we have that immense benefit we were told of last year, that the broad shoulders of the UK would protect us from harm if the oil price should fall – the 60-odd thousand jobs lost are really evidence of that promise fulfilled.

Then there is the closure of Longannet to celebrate, since Westminster decided it was in our interests to drop the promise to “do something about the connection charges”, after having blocked the idea of carbon capture there.

We must not forget, too, the benefit of the rise in foodbanks showing our resilience and ingenuity, and the great savings made in the welfare bill by those disabled but deemed fit for work who conveniently decide to remove their burden from the taxpayer by dying as soon as possible.

Aren’t we lucky? We should be counting our blessings for staying in the Union.

P Davidson,

Gartcows Road,

Falkirk.

BOTH Sir Tom Hunter and David Mundell have the same message for Scots regarding the constitution: "Move along, nothing to see here” (“Hunter: time to move on from independence strife”, The Herald, September 17).

Sir Tom has funded a special report into the impact of the Scotland Bill, as he did before the referendum when he was unable to make a decision on Yes or No and so commissioned a 90-page report to tell him whether he wanted independence or not.

He is now passing this received wisdom on to the masses who cannot afford such extravagances and encouraging us to "move on’’ and "build a wealthier and fairer country’’. As he appears to have money to waste on "special reports”, perhaps he could commission one into how Iain Duncan Smith’s Department of Work and Pensions is producing a "fairer’’ country .

Mr Mundell echoes Sir Tom in his exhortation to Scots to accept that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people and states that he is disappointed that Scotland has become "intolerant of certain views”, then proceeds to denigrate the First Minister and the nationalist movement, and refuses to confirm that any amendment to the Scotland Bill will be accepted. This from the lone Tory MP out of 59 MPs representing the views of the Scottish people.

These two gentlemen represent, in different ways, the democratic deficit faced by the people of Scotland.

One, rich as Croesus, can commission others to provide independent evidence to support the status quo that maintains his position, while the other, Nelson-like, ignores the political reality in his own country to do the bidding of his masters in a bizarre echo of a Moscow-controlled satellite from the old USSR.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

OVER recent days I’ve heard several people recall how devastated they felt on September 19 last year at the result of the independence referendum. I had never expected any other result given the negativity, scare stories, bribes and downright lies which emanated from the No campaign, so I took a more positive view of things, and thought the 45 per cent Yes vote, taken all round, was an encouraging result and a platform on which to build for the future.

However, no-one could have foreseen what happened next. The referendum campaign was over, but instead of being moribund, Scotland was buzzing, and the zest and enthusiasm of thousands of Yes Campaigners spilled over into membership of the Yes-supporting parties, particularly the SNP, who soared in the opinion polls and stormed to a sensational result at the UK General Election.

Perhaps my optimism on the morning after the referendum was fuelled by my memories of almost 50 years ago, when there was no Scottish Parliament, the SNP had no MPs at Westminster and was allowed only one five-minute party political broadcast a year on television in which to put their case to the public. An SNP campaigning slogan of the time declared “Independence, Nothing Less”. That slogan nearly became a reality, and one year on from the referendum which ignited Scots voters and took us close to joining all the other self-governing nations of the world, there is no need for Scotland to put up with governments we never voted for in a parliament 400 miles away, no need to settle for devolution, federalism or the Smith Commission. Scotland should settle for independence, and nothing less.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.

I WELCOMED the measured comments of Sir Tom Hunter about setting aside differences post-independence referendum and moving on in the best interests of Scotland.

I fear, however, that, while his views will be received with approval by most of the two million of the electorate who voted No last year, they are unlikely to be persuasive with the First Minister, the SNP Holyrood Government, the 56 SNP MPs, and the SNP activists who have failed to understand at least some parts of the meaning of the word “No” and to accept the verdict of the people.

There are many who have come to believe that over the years the attention of the SNP Government has been distracted in relation to the administration of those important affairs for which they are responsible, because of their tunnel vision in relation to independence. Let us see in the SNP manifesto for the 2016 Holyrood elections the expression of a firm resolve to reverse the decline in standards in the education of our children; to ensure that the problems afflicting Police Scotland are properly addressed; to deal with the issues which affect the acceptable delivery of health services in Scotland; to make best use of the additional tax and welfare provisions to be delegated to the Scottish Parliament by the provisions of the Scotland Bill currently going through the UK Parliament, and to recognise the holding of another referendum as being secondary to the SNP’s ongoing governmental responsibilities in relation to matters which are of consequence to all of the Scottish people and not just to supporters of the SNP.

Being a half-glass full sort of individual, I live in hope.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

THE No voters in the referendum have felt increasingly frustrated that the democratic decision of the people of Scotland has been largely ignored by our own Government. If the vote had been for independence would we have expected to vote again in a few years’ time, like some kind of banana republic? The economic argument for independence was always on shaky ground; the fall in the oil price has clearly demonstrated just how fragile the economy of a small country of only five million people would be.

Most of us are tired of this. The Scottish Government spent two years preparing for the referendum, to the detriment of education, the police and the NHS, and is now distracted by discussions on the timing of another referendum. As Sir Tom Hunter says, there are much more important issues to consider. Let’s get on with improving Scotland and stop wasting time disputing a decision we have already made.

Carole Ford,

132 Terregles Avenue, Glasgow.

AS I was unable to vote in the referendum I wish to give my heartfelt thanks to my fellow Scots who voted No and saved our country from economic disaster.

If the SNP had won where would we be? Project Fear would now be Project Truth. Those of us who disputed Alex Salmond’s “cautious estimate oil price of $113” were vilified as anti-Scottish liars. Any banks left would be either floating a Scottish pound or preparing to join the euro. Without the Barnett formula we would be faced with huge expenditure cuts and income taxes, thereby hitting the poorest in our country – the very same people the nationalists exploited in their quest for separation at any cost.

Lewis Finnie,

25 Larkfield Gardens, Edinburgh.

BRIAN M Quail (Letters, September 17) informs us as follows: “Independence means that our young men will no longer be conned into fighting wars in distant lands in the interest of American Big Oil and transnational corporations.” Really? The only party which can deliver independence is the SNP. At a meeting last year they decided that an independent Scotland would retain its Nato membership. Because of this I resigned from the SNP.

Sandy Cheyne,

6 Skateraw Road, Newtonhill, Stonehaven.