Yes consequences

SO ThOSe who favour Scotland’s independence and attempt to convey some of the realities of westminster rule are branded as being driven by “anti-english prejudice” by alexander McKay and of having a “myopic outlook” by andrew Gray (Letters, 22 October).

No attempt is made to debate the issues raised of the relative benefits (or more precisely the lack of them) to Scotland of massive UK infrastructure spending on the Channel Tunnel and proposed hS2 projects.

Forgotten are the claims of increased numbers that would be visiting Scotland as a result of the London Olympics when in fact there was a decline in numbers during this event.

as Lesley Riddoch pointed out (Perspective, 21 October), there are many areas where the current constitutional arrangements have let down the people of Scotland, and these could readily be extended further to include the huge “underspends” in areas of Scottish funding, ranging from broadcasting to defence.

It may disappoint Messrs McKay and Gray to know there is no “anti-english” agenda behind my comments; I believe most people in england, particularly in the North, will benefit from a reinvigorated and vibrant Scotland.

also, I am not a member of the SNP although clearly the former’s “paranoia” around the First Minister and his party has led him to another wrong conclusion.

Should there be any casualties arising from Scotland’s independence it is likely to be those among the “British elite”, including Scots, who have usurped their positions for personal favour and gain.

If that undemocratic anachronism that is the house of Lords was also to become a “casualty” I would not shed any tears (and I suspect many english people feel the same way). Given that it has taken Freedom of Information requests to reveal the truth of Scotland’s economic situation as detailed decades ago by McCrone and the negative impacts on some Scottish cities of the hS2 project, if there is any hidden agenda here it is not an “anti-english” one, except of course in the minds of those who struggle with facts that don’t fit their own subjective views of the world.

Thankfully, for the sake of future generations growing up in Scotland, there is increasing evidence in public debate that more and more people are attempting to take an objective look at what potentially lies ahead both inside and outside of the “Union”.

sTan groDynsKi IT IS all very well for Matt Qvortrup (Perspective, 22 October) to praise alex Salmond’s oratory and “vision” for Scotland but he is based south of the Border and will not have to live directly with the consequences of a Yes vote in next year’s independence referendum.

I note, too, that the prominent proponent of devolution and independence, Canon Kenyon wright, has a residence in england.

Scots should beware of advice from those living beyond the borders of Scotland who do not have immediate experience of the contemporary challenges facing the country and who will not directly experience the consequences of a Yes vote.

norman Bonney IT waS wise for the University of edinburgh to drop its so-called gagging clause about statements made by its students’ association, eUSa (your report, 22 October). arguably, it was a pointless gesture in the first place.

The university administration ought to have a public relations machine capable of refuting any outrageous statements made by representatives of the student body.

But I want to call into question some of Tiffany Jenkins’ arguments about restrictions on freedom of speech (Perspective, same edition).

a largely well-argued case was spoiled by her simplistic suggestion that staff and students in universities, people on trains and men watching football “should be free to say and think what they like”. Really?

On that basis we would have made no progress in largely eliminating racist chanting on terraces and stands throughout the country.

equally, it ought to be possible for men and women to travel on public transport free from the fear of having to listen to and endure divisive, foul-mouthed, harsh, provocative and sectarian language.

That sort of language cannot be justified in terms of freedom of speech. It damages freedom not just because it creates fear, it also discourages people from using an essential facility; it often provokes violent retaliation with all the discomfort and embarrassment that entails.

Getting the balance between free speech and protecting the dignity of others can never be easy.

Tiffany Jenkins ought to ask herself if we would have made any progress on better race relations and sexual equality if, over the decades, the language of the reactionaries had been allowed to go unchecked.

BoB Taylor