Sir, – Robert I G Scott (“The answer remains emphatically ‘no’”, Letters, October 22) buries his head in the sand and informs us, “the people of Scotland have made it quite clear that they do not wish to leave the UK.”
He asks what grounds the SNP have for their continuing pursuit of independence.
Westminster’s failure to honour the 2014 “vow”, signed by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, promising more powers to Scotland if it rejected inpendence, are grounds enough.
Mr Scott believes his own country’s citizens are powerless in the face of London’s establishment, and that any course taken without their approval would be, “irrelevant and illegal”.
What a sad reality this “union of equals” is to the likes of Mr Scott, who describes the democratically elected government of his own country as the enemy within.
Sovereignty in Scotland lies with the people of Scotland, no parliamentary or crown authority outranks it.
This was officially reinforced and endorsed by Westminster only last year.
Subsequent events have revealed how contemptuously perfidious Albion once again waives the rules when dealing with their Caledonian neighbour and partner.
Finally, the gentleman isn’t the first unionist to use the, “diabolic state” of a Scottish economy run by London as an argument for continuation of the same.
Which, perversely, since Mr Scott himself is unhappy with our economic performance, are yet more grounds for pursuing Scottish independence.
15 Thorter Way, Dundee.
Old chestnuts in unionist trope
Sir, – It seems unbelievable that Robert I.G.Scott, (Letters, October 22) still relies on disproven arguments to convince others that Scottish independence should continue to be denied by Westminster.
He expresses surprise that a small nation like the UK cannot remain united, despite the vastly superior voting numbers enjoyed by the largest nation, England, giving it dictatorial status, which guarantees it a winning margin in UK national polls, thus belying the belief that we all belong to a union of equals in a democracy.
However, his subsequent assertion that Westminster has powers to obstruct further moves by Scotland to seek independence relies heavily upon the result of the 2014 referendum, achieved by a subsequently dishonoured pledge by Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband which encouraged the Scottish electorate to believe its desire to remain a member of the EU would be guaranteed by remaining part of the UK.
He goes on to refer information provided by the GERS figures, which suggests he has missed the numerous occasions on which this data has been proved to be no more than guesstimates, which is a stage worse than estimates for providing accurate details.
His conclusion that the UK is being broken up by an enemy from within is arguably correct, but not, as he is implying, by the SNP.
Had he been closely following the Brexit debacle at Westminster he should have noticed it is not the voting intentions of the smaller parties in the house, which have been consistent throughout, that have caused the impasse, but the divided and sometimes changing stances of the 533 honourable members from south of the border.
Allan A MacDougall.
37 Forth Park,
Bridge of Allan.
Not a turbine turning for miles
Sir, – Dr John Cameron’s letter (“Renewables a cost to us”, October 22) clearly describes the costs attributable to operating wind turbines.
In addition to these operating and subsidy costs, there is the weather dependency and consequent intermittent and unreliable operation of such turbines.
Driving down the A74 from Glasgow and across the Galloway Hills last Friday, I passed hundreds of wind turbines and every one was stationary.
The following Monday, returning via the Scottish Borders and Midlothian, once again not one of the acres and acres of turbines was turning.
What a gross waste of expensive capital resources.
Obviously, other back-up generating systems were required in order to maintain our electricity supply indicating that we need duplicate and reliable generating units in addition to wind turbines.
The capital cost of such duplicate generation systems will inevitably also find its way on to our ever-increasing electricity bills.
Reason needed in racism row
Sir, – I doubt Dr Waiton provoked too much fury beyond those who are frequently furious on Twitter (“Lecturer at centre of football racism storm”, The Courier, October 22).
Whether or not we are becoming more racist is an empirical question with an empirical answer.
Evidence from the Crime Survey of England and Wales shows a long-term decline in the number of racial hate crimes, in line with a softening of attitudes as shown by the British Social Attitudes Survey, with perhaps stability demonstrated more recently.
Dr Waiton’s comments, as reported, were reasonable, and if wrong, should be refuted with evidence not censure.
Dr Richard Norrie.
Bring balance to climate debate
Sir, – Regarding your article “Climate change deniers are urged to ‘wake up’” (The Courier, October 11).
No one is denying the climate is in a warming phase, and the climate is changing.
What is being questioned is how much human activity and carbon release is contributing to this, and whether the effects will be catastrophic.
Labelling people who disagree as “deniers” is a slur, designed to categorise them.
This is a lot of scientific information refuting the claims of impending climate catastrophe.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation publish many pamphlets on this, and Gregory Wrightsone’s new book includes 60 science-based facts refuting climate doom.
There is no scientific, impartial debate on climate change in Britain today.
Politicians, the BBC and mainstream media are all grossly biased towards claims of impending climate disaster.
It is heartwarming there appears to have been an outbreak of common sense in the Angus constituencies.
10 Kilberry Street,
How will we pay for pensions?
Sir, – Projections by the National Records of Scotland predict almost one quarter of a million more pensioners by 2043 at the same time as the working age population will drop by 7,000.
At the SNP conference this year, a resolution was passed to look at how they could set a target of paying a minimum pension at 63% of pre-retirement earnings.
It will be interesting to see how the SNP think they would be able to afford this in an independent Scotland.
Higher taxation or working till we drop?