The independence debate is often framed around the risks that taking such a step would involve. What, however, of the downsides of staying in the Union?
Today one of our correspondents poses some questions for Union-supporting readers.
Stewart Falconer of Alyth writes:
"I find it mildly amusing to see more or less daily comments from media commentators and letter writers all identifying as 'unionists', exhorting independence supporters to give up the fight, 'see sense', it’s a lost cause, the figures don’t stack up and so on.
"Many of those writers will be Scottish and they want us to believe that they know best. They back this up by producing spurious arguments and dodgy figures in support of their position.
"I firmly believe that many Scots are canny, savvy people who are streetwise and who see through much of the so-called 'evidence'. The figures tend to support this assertion as I note that a very recent poll indicated 58% in favour of independence.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to turn the whole argument on its head and to ask those who profess to be unionists if they really believe they would be worse off and if they:
1. Are content to continue the denial of a referendum - never mind independence - if the majority of wish one. Is this democratic? Even if they dispute the figures and genuinely think independence supporters are in the minority, then all the more reason to allow one.
2. Wish weapons of mass destruction to remain on our shores, particularly when the results of safety evaluations are now being kept secret.
3. Are content to allow a law-breaking, rule-breaking government to continue (examples are too numerous to mention).
4. Are happy that 62% of their fellow countrymen and women have been dragged out of the European Union against their will.
5. Feel good about increasing child poverty, rising mortgages, exorbitant energy bills and increasing food bank usage.
"The list is endless."
Click here to sign up to the Letter of the Day newsletter
📨 Read more in our Letters page
Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel