Our security demands that the UK should be an effective force
WHEN the President of the United States warned that Scottish independence could damage the UK’s world standing, he was curtly told not to interfere in Scotland’s internal affairs; and when a senior Nato figure reasoned that the defence policy of an independent Scotland would be very dangerous a former UN Ambassador was wheeled out with unsupported assertions that Scotland would be well-defended, and warmly welcomed internationally. Yet Barack Obama had a point: Scottish security demands that the countries that now form the UK – united or not – should be an effective force in world affairs. There is a chronic threat from terrorists, a frightening situation in the Middle East, renewed Russian aggression, unfinished business in Afghanistan, and serious economic and political difficulties that give importance to the UK bridge role between the US and the EU. The future of the western world is at stake. Here the UK punches above its weight. It helps that, faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, output had reached its pre-crisis level by 2014. This recovery was based on unavoidable cuts in public spending, and measures are in place to spread its benefits. The US has also recovered. However France, Italy and Germany are on the brink of recession, with potentially dire consequences. Yet the UK cannot simply walk away from the EU. It has to be reformed; and the best prospect of that lies in determined and persistent effort by the UK.
An independent Scotland would weaken the UK. Scots would sit impotently between Saudi Arabia and Senegal at the UN; believe they had an automatic right of entry to an unreformed EU; and would reduce defence expenditure when it should be increasing in all Nato countries. Moreover, the SNP has a misplaced belief that being part of the UK threatens the Scottish welfare state, which it would restore. There would be no austerity in an independent Scotland. Yet public spending, which can crowd out much-needed private investment, already accounts for more than 25 per cent of Scottish national income – more than it was in communist Poland. The SNP’s reckless People’s Republic would be unaffordable. Large increases in Scotland’s public outlays would be disastrous. Yet the SNP still gives the impression that the resolution of Scottish economic and social problems awaits only the break-up of the UK.
The truth is otherwise. Labour malpractices, weak management, and chronic public subsidy mark the recent history of Scottish shipbuilding. The link between Cunard and the Clyde has been broken: recent Queens have been born in France and Italy, not on the uncompetitive Clyde. As this suggests, many Scottish problems are parochial in origin; and existing powers are adequate for their solution. Since these have gone unused, it is not clear that those in authority should be trusted with grave responsibilities in defence and foreign affairs. SNP bluster is also not reassuring. It is, for example, a myth that Scottish oil finances English expenditure, but gives Scots no control over this. The London economy is bigger than the Scottish economy. Its public revenues go into the public purse without fuss. And Scotland has long had the relatively highest share of UK public expenditure.
The somewhat hysterical attempt to stampede people into voting for independence should be ignored. Scotland’s future security and prosperity demand a resounding No. Emeritus Professor James Pickett, 18/4 Harbourside, Inverkip, Greenock. AS a former reporter on a national newspaper and Scotland’s first woman sports writer I find it difficult to contemplate the destruction of the United Kingdom.
My late father, Hugh Munro, author of The Clydesiders, would be appalled by present events. His Clutha novels about a Clydeside detective were born during his own desperate time in a Govan shipyard.
Among his other novels, Tribal Town was an expose of the hypocrisy and political nepotism in a small west coast Scottish town.
He was a proud Scot, a piper both in Ardrossan and Stevenston pipe bands and a gold medallist Highland dancer. But he instilled in me and my siblings a love of this wonderful island of Great Britain. I do the same with my grandchildren. How could he not? One of 11 his brothers and sisters traversed the globe.
I had the privilege of meeting the late Nelson Mandela in Cape Town. His first words to me were: “You are a Scot! I have been to Scotland and I want to know what you think of secession?”
As he held my hand I told him I was a proud Scot but also a true Brit and in today’s shrinking world it better for our island to remain united as we have too many years of togetherness to pull apart.
He smiled his beautiful smile and still holding my hand nodded his head wisely.
Watching Prince Harry’s Invictus Games and seeing the “warriors” of Britain in their Union flag colours I opened my battered diary and read in my faded writing: “Invictus – by WE Henley:
“It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the Captain of my soul.”
Underneath I had written: “These words kept Nelson Mandela’s spirits up on Robben Island.”
Mr Mandela was a gracious man who learned much from life just like our brave sailors, soldiers and airmen who embody all that is Great in Great Britain. I wonder what he would make of Scotland now? Sally Barton, 90 Belbroughton Road, Norton, Stourbridge, West Midlands. THE referendum in Scotland is being closely watched by the people of The Netherlands. We try to grasp the debate from our own position. The Dutch are all too aware of the size of their nation of 16 million people compared with the size of Germany, France and the UK. Our diplomats have to work hard and effectively to have our viewpoints heard in Europe. There is a clear realisation in our country that no nation can be truly independent nowadays. All nations in Europe, including the big three, are heavily interdependent, mutually dependent on each other.
The degree of this interdependency has increased a lot in the last century due to higher transportation efficiencies and other factors, and will continue to increase further in the foreseeable future. A country cannot declare independence and then assume that it is. A nation or region can only accommodate its level of interdependence and so maximize its influence. Our diplomats have learned that Dutch interests are best served not by going to Brussels directly, but by first going to London, to plead our case, then to Berlin (sometimes first) and then perhaps to Paris. If necessary we team up with other small countries. Only then do we take our case to Brussels. A strong UK is therefore considered to be in the Dutch national interest.
We believe that if the Scots declare independence they will soon figure out that the best way for them to foster their interests is by operating in a similar way. We can understand that some people in Scotland feel their interests are diluted in London before being presented in Brussels, but we envy the Scottish influence on the much larger English nation.
Likewise we look with some amazement at Norway and Switzerland. They implement nearly every law and regulation passed in Brussels in order to avoid practical anomalies. They just give up their right to vote in Brussels in return for a right to be heard there and for the illusion that they are less part of a strongly interdependent continent. Henk Stokhorst, Oudgenoegstraat 43, 9301 GB Roden, The Netherlands. THIS is not a letter about whether Great Britain is divided or not ... that is up to the residents of Scotland to decide. This letter may be coloured by distance (Canada is a wee ways away), perspective or just sadness.
But there seems to be something sadly missing in the whole discussion which I have witnessed.
Whether Great Britain is to be divided or not, it has been an incredible run of 300 years of this joint adventure called Great Britain. The effect on the world has been stunning, with some failures which will always be dwelt upon by some, but what an achievement in philosophy, government, technology, industry, sports; the list goes on.
We remember how Edinburgh surged to a centre of philosophy; how the rules of so many sports were formalised; how in 1940 it was quite clear: “We shall not surrender.”
In this entire debate I have yet to hear: “While it has been a wonderful time of achievement, the time has come for Scotland and the rest of Great Britain to part” or “while it has been I wonderful time of achievement, these are the ways to make this endeavour continue”.
All I hear is acrimony and the idea that this incredible achievement should sink to something that it is embarrassing to relate to future children is so sad.
It is strange to think that the Union flag may one day fly only as part of Hawaii’s ... but how much sadder that all the achievements of the men and women over these 300 years could go unremembered, through embarrassment, by future generations.
Dividing the island of Great Britain or not is one discussion, but forgetting this incredible achievement on both sides of a new national border would be another. David Rawcliffe, 157 Tamarack Drive, Thornhill, Ontario. AS far back as we can reasonably go, my family is from the north-east Borders, that is to say, mostly English yet closely related to Scots.
Regarding the Scottish referendum, it must be noted that the origin of this awful state of affairs is to be found in the 1997 devolution strategy, which was pushed through by Tony Blair’s first government with indecent haste. I don’t remember lots of people marching in Glasgow, Edinburgh or London demanding devolution.
The law of unintended consequences being what it is, Labour saw its vote fall to the SNP and the Scots now face a rather grim future.
The willingness of such a large part of the Scottish electorate to support independence of a country without a national currency is a fitting testimony to five decades of poor state education. This example of economic and political illiteracy is reinforced by the rather naive proposition that five million Scots will get better terms if they are allowed to join the 500 million who make up the EU. This is in spite of a now retired president of the EU and his successor, Jean-Claude Junckers, repeating the message that an independent Scotland will not be allowed to join the club.
David Cameron deserves his share of the blame for the mess we all face by allowing such grave constitutional matters to be decided by a simple majority vote. Any competent constitutional lawyer would advise that a two-thirds majority should be required for such serious matters. Such a crucial matter should have been allowed to be discussed by the lifetime of two parliaments, both in Holyrood and Westminster – that is to say, after both of the next parliamentary elections in both Scotland and UK.
I sincerely hope that the referendum results in a No vote and that wiser, more objective counsels than those of Alex Salmond prevail. The most important message which should be sent is that this is not a General Election; the decision you make cannot be revoked in five or 10 years. This is a decision which will outlast our grandchildren’s greatgrandchildren – and their kids will look back and say: “What on earth were they thinking about?”. Richard Elsy, 5 East Norfolk Street, Carlisle.