EU dilemma

i AGRee entirely with Donald lewis (letters, 4 February) about the SNP’s lack of comment on the implications of the fact that Scotland would be required to accept the Schengen Agreement on open borders should we join the european Union if the Yes vote were to win the day. the subsequent need for a controlled border with the rest of the UK is a massive issue.

For me there is another massive elephant in the room that Alex Salmond and all of his supporters have chosen to consistenty ignore: how do they propose that we can keep the pound sterling and at the same time join the eU as a new member state without being forced to accept the euro as our currency? Make no mistake; the eU is abundantly clear in its statements that every new member state is required to join the euro as a condition of entry into its dubious ranks.

the SNP’s future currency policy is a complete shambles and while this is a huge concern for individual citizens like me, it is a complete nightmare for the Scottish corporate world with the massive negative implications for exchange and interest rates and investment.

these are not esoteric issues (or “scaremongering”), as ultimately they would impact hugely on all of us.

DAviD K ALLAN thusiastic letter from Scottish Renewables about 80 per cent of potential tourists being unaffected, because that was down from more than 93 per cent in 2008.

i repeat the unanswered question i asked then – might disinclination to visit Scotland be accelerating with increasing numbers of wind turbines?

meLANie FOrD

i do not share Alex Neil’s complete confidence that society is now a better place as of yesterday, nor his conviction that there will be no negative consequences as a result of the new legislation.

the necessity to respect the views of those who oppose samesex marriage has been emphasised by MSPs. therefore may i suggest the term “homophobic” – which did occur in the parliamentary debate – be a term that is used advisedly.

A phobia, we all know, is a fear, and usually an irrational one. the word “homophobic” insinuates that there is an irrationality attached to the beliefs of those who do not approve of homosexual practice. And more tellingly we are then led to deduce that those who do approve are the people of good sense and sweet reasonableness.

i have no fear of homosexuals nor am i “nervous around” them; the latter phrase was snuck in by an MSP yesterday in an unworthy attempt to trivialise the deeply held beliefs that inform the conscience that differs from his own.

however, i am nervous when i consider that the great majority of the vote that saw the passing of the law yesterday in holyrood, in my experience, does not reflect the views of the Scottish people. Perhaps we need a referendum.

i do indeed harbour a fear. it is that those who hold that marriage should be between a man and a woman will lose the right to openly express such a belief.

the temerity to take part in the debate in the public square may be eroded, if pejorative words such as “homophobe” are routinely appended to the contributor. it is to the benefit of all Scotland’s people that debate is not snuffed out because there is a fear of ridicule or of victimisation.

NANCy CLuSKer ricanes and tornados are major contributors to global emission levels.

there is nothing that mankind can do unless Prince charles comes up with one of his frankly bizarre ideas.

Recently the Mount Sinabung volcano on the indonesian island of Sumatra erupted, spewing out ash clouds and dirty carbon dioxide.

in 2010 the ash cloud from the icelandic volcano eyjafjallajokull caused enormous disruption to air travel.

Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991 and spewed out more greenhouses gases than the entire human race had produced in its entire years on earth.

volcanic eruptions prove how puny are the attempts of man to control the climate.

there are 500 active volcanoes in the world.

Will Prince charles be able to overcome nature?

CLArK CrOSS