Sir, I cannot understand Britain’s enthusiasm for interfering in the politics and internal affairs of other countries. The current glaring example is that of the referendum held in Crimea.
Whether or not this is, in our eyes, undemocratic is wholly irrelevant. This is not our business and we should allow matters to resolve themselves on their own without our interference.
The people of Crimea, irrespective of a hastily constructed poll seem to have overwhelmingly voted to be affiliated to Russia. Our meddling in the past has only brought about ill- will towards us reference Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq, to mention but a few.
We are about to declare sanctions upon Russia, who will undoubtedly reciprocate, to our mutual detriment. Will we now enter into a new phase of a new cold war?
What right do we have to take some moral high ground following Tony Blair recently taking us into an unnecessary and illegal war with Iraq? History shows us that wars are initiated by a few people pursuing their own self-interests.
Britain has never been a shrinking violet in the past when it comes to meddling and we seem hell-bent on continuing in this direction together with the gung-ho Americans.
For goodness’ sake let us draw back from the brink of sanctions and allow some form of continuing sense and diplomacy to prevail.
David L Thomson. 24 Laurence Park, Kinglassie.
Tory leader has picked wrong battleground
Sir, A change in the face (and the faces) of the Scottish Conservative Party may be leader Ruth Davidson’s ambition (Courier, March 17), but a history and economics lesson on the history of prescription charges might not go amiss.
Even when they were in place, for most of the post-war period, this did not prevent regular difficulties with nursing and midwifery staffing.
Their abolition and then reintroduction by the Labour government in the 1960s created a lot of problems. These related mainly to exemptions and a cumbersome administrative machine to monitor them.
The Holyrood government introduced their abolition gradually between 2007 and 2011, and for two very good reasons. The first is the general principle that access to health care should be free at the point of use. It should not depend on your income. The second is the need to ease the impact on households at a time when real wages and salaries were falling. This has proved popular among different social groups and, I suspect, among many middle income Conservative voters.
If Ms Davidson is to revive her party’s fortunes, she needs to engage on a different battleground to this one.
Bob Taylor. 24 Shiel Court, Glenrothes.
National not always best
Sir, I agree entirely with the letter from George Thomson in Monday’s Courier, (Based on a false premise), along with other recent letters in the same context.
It would appear the single police service is fast becoming too political and oriented very much towards the cities and towns, rather than the rural communities.
Surprisingly, local councillors are not exactly shouting from the rooftops in protest. Local knowledge is a prime factor in policing and this is rapidly disappearing with the closure/partial closure of police stations and officers being drafted into areas miles away from where they are based.
The political boast about the crime rate being so low relates to recorded crime, rather than actual, because many people are not bothering to report crime.
National organisations are not always effective and efficient, as they can become too large to control, and we have all witnessed some shining examples.
John McDonald. 14 Rosebery Court, Kirkcaldy.
Only way to stop smoking
Sir, Re your article in Monday’s Courier about smoking which posed the question: “Why is it so hard to give up smoking?”
People who wish to stop smoking should forget all about nicotine patches, chewing-gum, therapy, hypnosis, etc, they are all a complete waste of time and money. There is only one way to stop smoking. Quite simply do not buy any more cigarettes!
A taxpayer who smokes one packet of cigarettes daily spends around £3000 per annum after tax or £3750 before tax more than £70 per week just for the “pleasure” of smoking and I would think that saving that amount of money would be quite an incentive to stop smoking.
I can honestly say that this method works because I did that on May 27 1992 and have not had a cigarette since.
John M Page. 8 Panter Crescent, Montrose.
No turning back . . .
Sir, Whatever some correspondents might say, it does seem your paper is allowing, quite fairly, both sides of the referendum debate to have their say. However, there are some important considerations that I feel are not being stressed nearly strongly enough.
Firstly this must be seen to be one of the most important decisions we, the Scots, will ever be asked to make. Let’s hope that everyone able to vote will do so, for, whatever the result, a small turn out would be a very poor reflection on the country.
It might be that most people have already made up their minds and will not be open to further attempts to persuade them to go one way or the other; however, “still don’t-knows” owe it to their country to work at reaching an opinion before September 18.
Secondly it must be accepted that both sides of the debate have strong arguments in support of their cause. Of course Scotland would be able to stand on its own feet. Similarly, there can be no doubting we would experience some difficulties as we set out on that path.
However, let us not allow ourselves to become an angrily divdided nation in the process. Let us accept that others will differ in their opinion while feeling just as strongly about it all as we do. Let us not start throwing stones at the other side.
Lastly, we must be aware of the essential fact that if we do vote for independence that will be it. There will be no turning back. We will be on our own whether we find we like it or not.
David C Smith. Clocksbriggs, Forfar.
Leave romantic images for TV
Sir, If a flock of sheep want to cross a busy motorway because they can see lush green grass on the other side, what are the “positive arguments” for staying where they are Where are the positive union arguments? (letters, March 14)?
Yet it might save their lives. Similarly, the advocates of independence hold out all sorts of goodies for us if we take the plunge. On inspection, however, these turn out mostly to be either based on dubious interpretations of economic data, or on the hope that “it will be all right on the night” (the Westminster Government will cease its ‘bluff’ on a single currency, for example).
Behind all this lies the romance of Scottish nationalism; I think the experience of the last century suggests that romantic images of a nation’s past are best kept for festive celebrations and perhaps the TV screen.
As for North Sea oil, has anyone mentioned that the tax receipts have fallen by 44% in one year? This would have left a hole of £4.4 billion in the budget of an independent Scotland.
Antony Black. 79 Blackness Avenue, Dundee.
Scots have abilityto make it work
Sir, It would seem that the Westminster Government would like the referendum on Scottish independence held on a “need-to-no” basis. This must be so when this government looks to uphold the best interests of the UK and the well-being of the majority must come before that of the minority.
It does not follow, therefore, that they necessarily believe a unified UK is in Scotland’s best interests. So many obstacles to independence are now thrown over the border that, should they all come into force, Scotland will be the worse for them, but I also believe we Scots have the character and ingenuity to forbear and prosper in the face of such negativism and ill-will.
If independence should come, I doubt our English cousins would really be so mean. Forget your purse and vote with your heart, that is where the fate of independence should be!
Leslie Milligan. 18b Myrtlehall Gardens, Dundee.
If it’s “yes” I’ll be heading south
Sir, Correspondents often accuse David Cameron of pulling the wool over Scottish voters’ eyes in order to keep Scotland in the union. As far as I can see, the Tories must be extremely altruistic to want to hang on to this whingeing, rebellious lot up north.
Without the Scottish left-wing vote, the Tories would be in power at Westminster for evermore and without the handicap of the Liberals. As for Labour, I can understand why the English Labour Party want to keep Scotland onside, but Scottish Labour supporters would be wiser to vote for independence. Just as England on its own would be forever Tory, an independent Scotland would be permanently left-wing Socialist or even Communist.
As a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, I shall follow industries and banks and head south in the event of a “yes” vote. I think Alex Salmond would be wiser to settle for more devolved powers.
George K McMillan. 5 Mount Tabor Avenue, Perth.