I WOULD like to pick up on the point very well made by P Davidson in his letter under your heading “Brexiteers are already throwing in the towel on Empire 2 dreams” (Letters, August 14). The point being that many in Scotland have voted twice to remain in the EU.
This was true with the 62% in the Brexit vote, but I too believe that remaining in the EU was a critical factor for many people in our own independence vote in 2014.
On that occasion, however, it may have played against us who wish to gain independence for Scotland.
It is a fact worth considering that the exclusion of the estimated 3 million EU nationals from the UK Brexit vote was a critical determinate in that result as had they been allowed to vote, as they were in our indy vote, that could have changed the Brexit result. Indeed I would say it most certainly would have given the closeness of the “Leave” vote at 51.8%.
In Scotland the estimated 300,000 EU nationals were, rightly in my opinion, allowed to vote.
However the Unionists saw this as a gift. I know this for a fact, as one of my die-hard unionists friends was on the Better Together “telesales” team in Glasgow in 2014.
He told me his purpose and script was to phone any “foreign”-looking name in the telephone books and explain that if they were EU citizens a vote for Scottish independence would see them having to leave the country, as an independent Scotland could not remain in the EU.
He also told me that their script for Scottish residents from the former British Empire was that a vote for independence would see them lose their British passports, something of more meaning to this group than possibly to the average Yes voter. Both were effective tactics for the Unionist cause.
While there is certainly a risk in indyref2 of losing the not inconsiderable number of Yes voters who also voted for Brexit, I believe that as time goes on – and it won’t take long – almost everyone, including those from the former British colonies, will see that it is in our own best interests to be aligned, either as a full member of the EU, or as part of the EEA, with that family of nations that comprise the EU and its 500 million consumers.
It is no coincidence that the member state with the fastest-growing economy in the Europe today is that other English-speaking member, the Irish Republic.
The sections of our community outlined above are unlikely to be fooled again and this – together with the majority of Scots who have, on two occasions, proved to have a predisposition to see membership of the EU, whichever form that takes, as a positive and constructive way forward for our country – will surely take us forward to success next time round.
The sooner the better I say.
Ian Stewart
Uig, Isle of Skye
READ MORE: Letters: Brexiteers are throwing in the towel on Empire2 dreams
THE unfolding Chris McEleny vs MoD situation reminds me of an interesting personal experience that took place back around the mid-1980s and it had to do with an interest in the “Scottish independence movement”, as it was put to me at the time.
In 1975 I founded a company that went on to be known for subsea video and acoustic instrumentation. Although it majored in the oil and gas market, the MoD also became a significant and valued customer. In the early 80s I moved on to pursue other challenges, some of which took me to London from time to time. Shortly before I was about to embark on one of those visits I was telephoned, out of the blue, by someone from the MoD, asking if I’d be on London any time soon and could I make myself available for a meeting with a Mr “X” at their offices in High Holborn. We settled on a date and time.
I seem to recall that the offices in question were not very far from the Holborn tube station; housed in a typical soulless grey rectangular building out of the 1960s architectural design catalogue. There was little to reception other than a uniformed individual who solemnly requested that I deposit my briefcase behind his barren counter. Outside and in there was absolutely no indication as the nature of the building. I was ushered into a nearby room furnished with nothing more than a bare table and one chair on either side of it. In due course Mr “X” turned up and parked himself across the table. This was well before the widespread use of technology, so he came armed with the traditional pen and a notepad.
Introductions made, it was down to business in what turned out to be quite a short meeting, starting with a probe to check out my identity (clearly someone had done their homework on my background). He then moved on to the one and only matter of our meeting and although not his exact words, what it boiled down to was this: “Your previous company is being considered for an important contract and I would like, if possible, to understand the political leanings of that company’s directors. To your knowledge are any of them involved with the Scottish independence movement?”
I answered honestly that I had no knowledge of the company directors’ interest or involvement in the independence movement and for the first time ever I realised that Scottish-leaning sentiments were seen to be a threat to the established interests of the so-called “Union”. Plus ca change.
Bill Bryan
Inverness
READ MORE: MoD to appeal landmark ruling on independence being protected by equality law
IT was gratifying to see another letter from your contributor Linda Horsburgh in today's National in which she challenges again the authenticity of legal documentation surrounding Scotland’s sovereignty. As an ardent supporter of independence I value the raw passion it engenders, the usefulness of statistical analyses and overall stamina it takes to keep moving forward; but without the basis of our legal rights we are whistling in the wind. Let’s hear more from this standpoint, please.
Janet Cunningham
Stirling
READ MORE: Letters, August 15
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here