Sir, Mr Douglas Chapman (letters, May 12) expressed “vote yes” allegiances and I will not disparage his obviously sincere support for independence.
He implied that my views were purely historical, but on the same day in an Edinburgh newspaper yet another SNP supporter denounced Cromwell’s invasion and nine-year rule over Scotland from 1651.
Various historical grievances have been evident in many SNP letters.
It is interesting that Mr Chapman and I desire very similar futures for our families. Where we differ, however, is in our chosen routes to that future.
I want a strong and secure future for Scotland in the ever improving economy of the UK which has real international clout, a strong Scottish Parliament, still in tandem with the UK, but empowered to deliver our special Scottish needs.
I believe that the majority of Scots do not want to embark on an uncertain future based on hosts of uncosted promises and a dubious timetable in which to achieve those aims.
It’s one jump too far with too many dangers for canny Scots to risk.
The multitude of dangers are obvious and the risks are too high. No doubt, I will be deluged with cries of “Scaremonger!” the standard and devious SNP response to every fact or question.
I will ignore such senseless banter and support the Better Together campaign for an increasingly secure and prosperous future for Scotland.
Angus Brown. The Orchard, Longforgan, Dundee.
Jenny’s column lacked balance
Sir, I’m an avid Courier reader but fear I may have missed your edition recently where you declared your support for the No campaign in the independence referendum. What else could excuse Jenny Hjul’s branding of Yes supporters as furious nutters? (Comment, May 14).
The article, in which she discusses the plight of the fishing and whisky industries if Yes wins, does not seem to promote The Courier’s neutrality and is open to question.
Why would an independent Scotland denied EU membership be compelled to continue to allow EU member states the right to fish our waters? Why would foreign markets suddenly decide that whisky from an independent Scotland will be less desirable? Including such considerations would have balanced the article.
Ms Hjul rightly states we should listen to various folk who “know what they’re talking about”. But this reads as though referring only to those in the know who oppose independence. In the further interests of balance, perhaps in her next commentary she could urge the voters to also listen to those in the know who are for independence?
Can I also suggest that, given this is such an important issue, The Courier might refrain from using phrases like “separatist fury” and “some nutter”. As a furious nutter myself, it’s not so much a matter of sensitivity, I just prefer well-balanced journalism.
Chris Johnston. 15a Cowgate, Tayport.
Ignored letters when PM
Sir, It came as no surprise to me to learn that the Ministry of Defence was attempting to block the radiation levels at Dalgety Bay and that Gordon Brown stated that it was shocking to suppress the findings. When Mr Brown was Prime Minister I wrote three letters to him regarding the plight of the British Nuclear Veterans and he did not even bother to reply.
Having served in a highly radioactive area, I have every sympathy for the residents of Dalgety Bay and understand fully their request for the radiation levels.
It is almost 60 years since I served at Christmas Island and I am still waiting for the radiation levels that I was subjected to being released.
My radiation film badges are reputed to have gone missing, as have the readings of my QFE (Quartz Fibre Electroscope) dosimeters of 5 roentgens per hour; my blood count taken after the tests (the blood count taken before the tests is in my medical records), and the 20 different tests which included a lymph node biopsy, completed at the Royal Air Force Hospital in Aden.
I am being fed lie after lie by the Ministry of Defence in order to cover up the atrocities committed during that era.
Perhaps there are things the Ministry of Defence do not want the residents of Dalgety Bay to know such as the levels of radiation emitted from the Torness nuclear power station or the radiation from the nuclear submarine hulks lying rotting at the Naval Dockyard a few miles away?
Dave Whyte. Blackcraigs, Kirkcaldy.
No need for a quiet period
Sir, Why does the Church of Scotland see the need for a service of reconciliation after the referendum (Courier, May 12)? It presupposes a number of things. Firstly, that we are all in a state of frenzy, arguing and feuding with everyone, and secondly, that there needs to be a quiet period whatever the outcome.
On the first point I don’t see people anywhere furiously debating the matter. Where there is real discord it is among the political class and their online foot soldiers.
On the second point the referendum, whatever the result, will not settle the constitutional question for evermore. Political parties will continue to put forward proposals for enhanced devolution and future generations may wish to look again at the whole question of independence.
That is only right and proper in a democracy. A service of reconciliation will not, and should not, herald a period of political quiet.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.