Relationship with UK more important to Scotland than it ever could be with EU

Independence supporter James Duncan asks questions of those who support the Union, saying he is genuinely interested in how they explain themselves (Letters, 14 January). But he twists and exaggerates the views of those who support Scotland’s positive place in the UK to create a caricature of them and their opinions.

So Mr Duncan asks why Unionists“aresoadamantthat Scotland is, uniquely, incapable of running its affairs”. Yet the great majority of Unionists do not suggest that. My view is that if Scotland leaves the UK, it will suffer a very difficult period of restructuring of public services and finances to enable a sustainable future, but it would go on to survive and in due course thrive.

My support for Scotland remaining in the UK comes from a belief that we have benefited from generations of positive and close interdependence socially, economically and culturally, and would be the lesser for turning our backs on that.

Also in the context of Brexit, I believe our relationship with the UK is demonstrably more important and integral to Scotland than that with the EU has been, or ever could be.

Mr Duncan asks why in relation to Scotland’s ability to look after its own affairs, Unionists think “it is better that Westminster do it for us”. This misrepresents the typical position of those who do not support Scottish independence. Scotland in the UK benefits from great autonomy, with its own parliament having wide ranging powers.

Undoubtedly the rest of the UK has benefited substantially from Scotland being in the UK, just as for its part Scotland continues to benefit, not least through the critical sharing of resources that we greatly depend upon.

KEITH HOWELL West Linton, Peeblesshire I thank Mr Duncan for starting a conversation about the question of whether Scotland could be independent.

Scotland is certainly a country with the potential to look after all its own affairs, but does that mean it’s sensible for it to do everything on its own rather than sharing?

The key issue is whether we are all better off, not just economically and financially but also socially and personally, if we draw on all the resources, skills and expertise of everyone living in this small island, rather than creating unnecessary barriers with our closest friends and allies.

I could draw on that Scottish business with the rest of the UK is vastly larger than it is with any other country, so why shoot ourselves in the foot by damaging those large links of trade, trust and history?

No one suggests we are uniquely incapable of running our own affairs. We already have a structure that manages so many vital ones; our own legal and educational systems, health and social care, farming policy and infrastructure, to name a few.

However, we also benefit from sharing others with a large friend – a common pensions system and unemployment support, a common currency, defence and environmental policies.

Yes, Denmark and Sweden have a higher standard of living than Scotland, but the key is they have a better educated workforce – that is the responsibility of Holyrood, and that is why so many are critical of the Scottish Government.

MARTIN REDFERN Royal Circus, Edinburgh James Duncan asks why Unionists think that Westminster is better than Holyrood in looking after Scottish affairs.

For the record, I believe an independent Scotland has the potential to survive economically, though not necessarily with the current SNP administration.

More importantly, however, Mr Duncan is asking the wrong question.

I was born in Dundee to a Scottish mother; my father came from Bolton and I have spent half my working life in London. The country I live in stretches from Shetland to the Scillies. Mr Duncan and his nationalists want to break up that country.

If they get their wish, I will be a foreigner in London and my London friends will be foreigners when they visit me. Post-independence there might be a Scottish embassy in Washington, but who will help me if I need consular assistance in Laos or Liberia?

Mr Duncan’s argument for independence rests on economics, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament already has financial and legislative power and despite the fact that costs of creating a new nation, from internal bureaucracy to external relations, are almost incalculable.

In the end, however, the economic argument for independence is a short-sighted and knee-jerk response to a Westminster government that may be gone in three years.

To answer the question Mr Duncan should have asked: our Unionism is only partly based on economic grounds. Above all, we are Unionists because to be Scottish is to be British and to lose our Britishness would be to lose a major part of ourselves.

MARTIN FOREMAN Craigend Park, Edinburgh