Sir, There is scant appetite for a second referendum on independence in Scotland— and what little there is is diminishing weekly. Public attention has shifted to job losses in the oil industry, and the crippling cuts in local government expenditure. Above all, there is a seeping awareness in Scotland of what Professor Philip Allot, in his powerful letter to The Times (Feb 27), termed “15 centuries of British history”.
At 7am on the morning after the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, the prime minister blundered by choosing to raise the so-called West Lothian Question from the steps of 10 Downing Street. He may be blundering again by using the threat of a second independence referendum in Scotland in the Brexit debate. I write as one of the dwindling number of surviving MPs who defied the Labour whip and joined Ted Heath in the lobby to enter the Common Market on October 28, 1971.
Tam Dalyell
MP (Lab) West Lothian 1962-83 and Linlithgow 1983-2005, MEP 1975-79
Sir, You report that the prime minister is encouraging the Scots to vote to remain in the EU as to do otherwise might stimulate another referendum on independence (Scottish edition, Mar 1). Fear not, for despite the SNP leaders telling us that the last referendum on independence was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, they will call for another just as soon as they think they can win. Our first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, tells us that Scots wish to remain in the EU, but I’m not sure where she gets that information. In my view, the Scottish people must vote as individuals as they see fit and ignore the politicians of all varieties.
Advertisement
Professor Colin Davidson
Ardfern, Argyll and Bute
Sir, If the UK votes to leave the EU, and the Scots (as is likely) vote to remain, there will clearly be strong pressure for Scotland to have a second independence referendum, in which a vote for Scottish independence will be seen as a means of staying in the EU. Leaving the EU is therefore very likely to lead to the break-up of the UK. Is that the intention or unintended consequence of Brexit? It will seem to many as a spectacular own goal.
If the choice lies between risking the break-up of the UK and putting up with the disadvantages of membership of the EU (even if these are judged on balance to outweigh the advantages of membership), then there can be no real doubt that our interests will lie in a vote to stay in.
Anthony Isaacs
Advertisement
Eashing, Surrey
Sir, The SNP seeks independent nationhood for Scotland. This, if achieved, will be economically challenging, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. At the SNP’s aspirational core is the need for sovereignty, which it contends is lacking in the current Union. Why then does Ms Sturgeon’s party wish to remain in the EU, in opposition to supporters of Brexit, who also seek that same idealised sovereignty? Is it the weakness of the economic argument which is so offputting to the SNP, or something else?
Matthew Parris has previously argued, convincingly, that the UK has a responsibility for the greater good. So, as Ms Sturgeon rides the crest of her popular wave, might she explain her contradictory rationale?
John Frame
Cellardyke, Fife
Advertisement
Sir, Nicola Sturgeon says that there is a “real chance” of a second independence referendum if Scotland is taken out of the EU against the wishes of a majority of its citizens. It is equally possible that the English will be kept in against the wishes of a majority of English voters by a Scottish and possibly Welsh majority.
In such an event, what should the English do?
Jeremy Westwood
Lewes, E Sussex