Sir, Since the matter of Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian question has been raised may I introduce what I believe is the underlying principle that his question illustrates, which may be stated as one parliament undivided, to the debate?
If there is to be a union there has to be a parliament of the union, which is one parliament undivided, that is where all members are equal and all have a vote on everything without geographical exclusions.
The union was achieved by an Act of the English Parliament to which the Scottish Parliament agreed, by adjournment, thereafter the members met as a unified parliament of equals, which is as one parliament undivided. If the parliament of the union is not one parliament undivided then it cannot be the parliament of the union and therefore, sooner or later, there will be no union.
Of particular concern at the moment is the idea that the Westminster parliament, which is the parliament of the union, can somehow be subdivided so that it sits part of the time as the parliament of the union and some of it sits part of the time as an English parliament. This will, of course, break the principle of one parliament undivided and therefore break the union.
Thus, as surely as a “yes” majority in the recent Scottish referendum would have broken the union, so will the idea of a sub-divided parliament.
This does not mean that England cannot have a parliament of its own, by Act of the Parliament of the Union and subsidiary to its powers, just like the present Scottish parliament. It also does not mean that the parliament of the union needs to sit all the time in Westminster or that it cannot reform itself in any way, as long as it does not break the principle of one parliament undivided.
Philip Roberts. Ascurry Mill, By Letham, Angus.
Same old story from George
Sir, I watched George Osborne’s speech from the Tory party conference and he just couldn’t resist the dig at Ed Miliband forgetting to mention “the deficit” in the speech he delivered, without notes or cribs.
Of course, George has been telling us for so long what a wonderful job he has been doing with the economy and the deficit that Ed didn’t see the need to mention it yet again. However, I could not help but notice that George never once looked directly at the cameras but had his eye constantly on the autocue.
Take a leaf from the book of one Gordon Brown. Never needs help and can talk all night with passion and style. Many politicians could learn a lot here.
But the most obvious thing to me from Mr Osborne’s speech was that, yet again, this government, if elected again (aye, right!) will not pursue the hi-tech companies who pay little or no tax in the UK.
The deficit will be reduced by squeezing those on benefits. The poor, those whose jobs have gone to the far east and mainland Europe.
So, nothing changes. Batter the poor. Crucify the vulnerable. Avoid the corporate tax avoiders.
Ken MacDougall. 3 Logie Avenue, Dundee.
Yes, we are still better together
Sir, Brian Macfarlane asks: “So, are we really still better together now?” We are, thank goodness, as we are still citizens of the most highly regarded and influential “blue chip” country in the world instead of citizens of an international nonentity like the Irish Republic (which we would have been had we chosen independence).
Had we chosen independence, everything we produce would be increased in price and therefore less attractive to our customers. Our purchases, both our weekly shop and everything else we buy such as household goods etc would have been up in price by 16 to 25%. Compare, for example, identical baskets of shopping from Tesco Scotland and Tesco Ireland and you will find our prices are approximately 20% less.
There are many other benefits more jobs and opportunities, bigger safety margins for pensions, better defence cover, members of the same health service with easy referral, members of the same market with no trade barriers etc. I can see no way in which we would be any better off with independence.
Alastair Stewart hits the nail on the head when he says: “The Yes Campaign have to accept they lost because the No Campaign had much the better case.” That will always be so!
Jim Alcock. Bowood, Kinross.
So nothing was guaranteed?
Sir, In the final week of the referendum campaign Gordon Brown fronted a Better Together vow, signed by the leaders of the three UK parties guaranteeing substantial new powers for Scotland in the event of a “no” vote. Now we have Gordon Brown begging us to sign a petition demanding the UK partners honour the vow.
So none of it was actually “guaranteed”?
Was Gordon Brown hoodwinked into a trap? Or did Gordon Brown lead many trusting Scots into a trap? It has to be one or the other.
Dave McEwan Hill. 1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.
Time to say ‘enough!’
Sir, Isn’t it an indictment on Scottish education under the present government that so many Yes activists seem to be under the delusion that 1.6 million is greater than 2.1 million?
As for their attempts to tear the country apart again, having paid no attention to the patent weaknesses in their case which led to their recent defeat, is it not time to say “enough, already”!
Kenn McLeod. 70 Ralston Drive, Kirkcaldy.