Sir, Alex Salmond (Home rule is my goal, front page story, Thursday January 8) is in no position to tell us what we want.
His mandate in 2011 was to make the case for independence. We considered that and rejected it. In the aftermath, the Smith Commission was tasked with delivering a vision that we could all get behind.
The commission included high level representation from all across the political spectrum in Scotland. Individuals and civic Scotland had the opportunity to contribute, and they did.
The result of those negotiations, expertly chaired, must now be considered to be the centre of gravity of political and constitutional deliberations in Scotland. The SNP cannot dismiss the Smith Commission proposals because they contributed to them and signed them off.
It is time we started to respect the stated will delivered by democratic processes in Scotland. Your newly recruited columnist has no such respect. He has no interest in Home Rule, greater devolved powers, federalism or whatever you want to call it.
He is only interested in independence and he wants to create an unstable form of devolution that will create difficulties and possibly default to independence in the future, undoubtedly with a huge amount of acrimony and damage to Scotland as well as the UK as a whole.
Still, there is a silver lining. Your new columnist has a massive galvanising effect on those of us who have a different vision for Scotland, and if the SNP do not achieve the great heights that they are currently predicting in May this year, then our over-exposure to this individual will undoubtedly be one of the reasons why.
Let him talk.
Victor Clements. Mamie’s Cottage, Aberfeldy.
That was never stated . . .
Sir, Derek Farmer’s criticism of Alec Harvey (letters, January 5) contains a number of assertions which need challenged.
The SNP has never stated Scotland “would be forever rich” after independence, they have pointed time and again to the challenges an independent Scotland would face. They have also, however, pointed to the opportunities which would arise from independence.
His ludicrous put down of Scotland’s “small (by world standards) economy” fails to take into account our Nordic neighbours, who continue to flourish with their own “small” economies.
Mr Farmer, who is anti-SNP and anti-independence, appears only too willing to talk Scotland down at every opportunity.
Scotland has a more diverse economy than Norway, which relies on offshore assets more than Scotland does. Fortuitously for the Norwegians, they have invested their own North Sea windfall wisely, and have accrued funds during times of plenty which protects them in times of economic uncertainty.
If only Scots had had the same opportunity to do likewise these past 40 years, instead of spiralling into debt courtesy of Westminster.
Ken Clark. 335 King Street, Broughty Ferry, Dundee.
A touch of ‘pot and kettle’
Sir, Councillor Gaul’s comments on the likelihood of controversial plans passed by the planning committee for 900 houses to be built in Angus being referred to the Scottish Government, smack a wee bit of “the kettle calling the pot black”.
From my personal experience his administration is not renowned for listening to the views of local residents in planning matters and the fact that they often find themselves “applicant, judge and jury” when assessing applications for affordable housing is a case in point.
Another instance recently publicised by your paper was the unfortunate situation a resident found himself in whereby he has to pay nearly £200 to a council department to adjudicate on whether his neighbour’s overgrown hedges constitute a breach of the High Hedges Act 2014.
In my view the council are guilty of conflict of interest as they have stipulated, as a planning condition, that “fast growing trees” should be used to screen the Angus Housing development next to my single-storey property in Northmuir, Kirriemuir.
They are often, therefore, the cause of the problem, but leave it to the developer/resident affected to deal with the consequences, despite objections being made at the planning stage and loss of light somehow not regarded as an “adverse affect on the householder’s amenity”.
Ronald W Silverstone. Shielhill Road, Northmuir, Kirriemuir.
What point was he making?
Sir, I am not sure exactly what point your correspondent Angus Brown is endeavouring to make in his somewhat garbled offering in Thursday’s Courier (January 8). He talks about “the SNP gaining only three wins out of 41 Scottish voting areas” in the independence referendum.
I hate to nit-pick but the SNP did not gain any wins! The referendum was contested by the Yes side and the No side.
Results were declared by 32 local council areas, four of which had a Yes majority.
Mr Brown goes on to state that “some No percentages were as high as 60%, a victory any political party would relish’.
I am sure they would but Mr Brown seems to have forgotten that there were four political parties campaigning for a No vote! We had the “unholy alliance” between Labour and the Tories plus the contributions of the Liberal Democrats and UKIP. This means that any 60% No vote would have to be split four ways!
Time to move on, Mr Brown, and prepare for swingeing cuts by David Cameron or Ed Miliband!
Alan Woodcock. 23 Osborne Place, Dundee.
Alex could be kingmaker
Sir, Am I alone in thinking that real democracy is all but dead? I remember not so many years ago when Ireland was given a referendum on an in/out question on membership of the European Union.
This produced a Yes majority but the matter did not rest there Ireland was virtually ordered to hold its referendum again, with veiled threats and warnings of doom and gloom should the same decision result. The Irish people, therefore, returned a No majority, with trepidation and apprehension playing a major role in that decision.
Now, here in Scotland, there are some parallels, despite a decisive No vote and assurances by politicians that, whatever the verdict it would be acknowledged and supported, this has hardly been the case.
Indeed, Alex Salmond, the arch renegade, intends to contest anAberdeen seat ostensibly to lead, if successful, what he believes will be a large number of equally successful SNP politicians at Westminster, come the next general election.
This, presumably, with the goal to cause as much mayhem as possible in his merciless ambition towards an independent Scotland, with little or no thought towards the majority of No voters whose views he should equally consider.
Should he be successful in these endeavours, and in the possible event of a hung parliament, he could play the role of kingmaker and join in a coalition government. Think of it, a determined independent and at the same time Deputy Prime Minister of a nation he would gladly divide.
Couldn’t happen could it?
David L Thomson. 24 Laurence Park, Kinglassie.
It shouldn’t be a surprise
Sir, At the outset of the referendum, the Westminster government dictated that the option of more powers for Scotland should be excluded from the ballot paper then, in the final days of the campaign, we were assured by a resuscitated Gordon Brown, Cameron, Miliband and
Clegg, by way of a solemn vow, that a “No” vote would bring extensive and meaningful legislation bringing Scotland close to federal status.
In fact, we are now promised the scrapings of the Smith Commission. We should be unsurprised. We had a “vow”, by way of Clause XVI of the Act of Union, that Scotland would have its own Mint.
We’re still waiting, and to add insult to injury, we have since been told that we would be precluded from using the currency we have shared for more than 300 years. Small wonder the memberships of the SNP and the Greens have exploded and continue to grow.
Joseph G Miller. 44 Gardeners Street, Dunfermline.