Sir, – With reference to the letter by William Loneskie (October 14) it may be that the constitution of Spain means the referendum was unconstitutional, but does that really mean illegal?
However, that is as far as it goes if comparing their situation with ours in Scotland. There are grievances behind the Catalans’ wish to be independent, and, yes, in that recent ballot not everyone voted.
But there is no direct definable link between their separation and any assertion of certainty of ensuing financial panic.
That is merely a statement (project fear again) used by those in favour of remaining.
These are the same vague threats that we saw in 2014, but nobody is able to explain why they think that there would be economic disaster with independence.
How is any group of people with a grievance expected to have a say?
Why, instead of sending in police to prevent an opinion poll, did the Spanish government not address those grievances?
Since when is no one allowed to ever leave a partnership that is not working?
The simplest thing for the Spanish government to do was to have ignored the poll, but instead of removing the reasons for independence, their actions have actually legitimised that demand.
Just because people are not allowed to express their preferences does not mean the views will go away.
Those against independence, as in Scotland’s case, have never been able to explain their position other than repeat unfounded fears.
The only way to test those views is to allow a referendum based on facts.
Nick Cole.
Balmacron Farmhouse,
Meigle.
TV reviewer got it wrong
Sir, – The Courier’s Weekend supplement (October 7) was scathing in its review of episode one of the BBC’s new Sunday evening drama The Last Post.
Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of Britain’s involvement in Aden in the 1960s, Paul Whitelaw’s comments do a great disservice to those diplomatic and military personnel who had the challenge of serving in a rapidly deteriorating and highly dangerous environment.
Similarly, he gives no credit to the BBC, who have come in for much criticism in recent times over their programme quality, for grasping this very prickly nettle and giving us viewers a tense and thought provoking, but excellent hour’s watch on Sunday evenings.
I sincerely hope Mr Whitelaw watched episode two which was not relaxing viewing.
I also suggest he reads the book, Having Been a Soldier, by the late Lieutenant Colonel Colin Mitchell which highlights the dangers faced by our troops in 1960s Aden.
If he is then still of the same opinion that the BBC have got this wrong, perhaps he should look for another job that he might just be good at.
Keith Richardson.
Melgund Burn,
Aberlemno.
Inflexibility of Michel Barnier
Sir, – Whatever one’s Brexit view, the negotiation ground rules, including no talks with the 27 individual members, no cherry-picking, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed were accepted by the UK in good faith. But the EU adopts different rules for itself.
It talks to the Labour opposition and our devolved governments, cherry-picks three outright demands, and illogically and unlawfully refuses any consideration of a future relationship until we accept these demands – ignoring Article 50, which includes nothing on exit fees but does require simultaneous linking of exit arrangements with a new future relationship.
France did not pay its full obligations on leaving Nato. Germany paid minimal reparations for its Second World War devastation (and none whatsoever to the UK), and even benefited from additional Marshall Aid and its 1953 debt-waiver, which were rationalised to counter the Soviet threat which Germany created. Yet when Mrs May emphasised the EU’s continuing need for our intelligence/security expertise, it reacted like a petulant child.
Did we demand in September 1939, May/June 1940 or even May 1945 that our account for Europe’s liberation must first be settled?
I think not. We should not have entered any talks based on Michel Barnier’s inflexible mandate from Berlin and Paris.
John Birkett.
12 Horseleys Park,
St Andrews.
Subsidies for electric cars
Sir, – I recently read a letter where the writer boasted that he had an electric car, was able to get free electricity at his local authority charging points, that he had received a government grant and that he could park in the charging points for free all day long.
Now there is the suggestion that local authority lamp-posts are converted to include charging points. Free again no doubt.
Electric cars are far more expensive than petrol and diesel ones yet owners get a grant of up to £5,000.
They do not pay any vehicle tax unlike the majority on the roads.
Thus, the wealthy individual is being subsidised by council tax payers, income tax payers and road users.
As the number of electric vehicles, the charging points, an updated grid and other essential infrastructure grow, then the burden on these taxpayers will be unsustainable.
It is a travesty that those who can afford these vehicles are being subsidised by the majority who cannot.
Clark Cross.
138 Springfield Road,
Linlithgow.
Education has been neglected
Sir, – Latest figures revealing that 44,000 Scottish primary school children are taught in class sizes of over 30, show how hollow Nicola Sturgeon’s assurances have been when she has claimed education is her top priority.
The SNP has been in control of Scottish education for 10 years. Education budgets have been squeezed, teacher numbers reduced and the workload of those delivering education has been increased to unacceptable levels.
The Scottish Government’s bungled implementation of the ill judged, and ironically named, curriculum for excellence, has further added to the problems.
The First Minister has chosen to prioritise a range of free giveaways and other costly policies aimed at shoring up the SNP’s popularity rather than delivering funding to where the need is greatest.
Scottish education has suffered as a result and will continue to do so while the Scottish Government places the SNP’s party political ambitions above all else.
Keith Howell.
White Moss,
West Linton.