Email
On Tuesday, Westminster politicians woke up to the fact that Scotland is very close to voting for independence. They are scrambling to throw together a plan promising new powers to the Scots to convince them to stay in the union (Brown to the rescue? No camp sends for ex-PM to save union, 9 September. Never mind that many of us have already cast our ballots in the post. And never mind that any plan so hurriedly thrown together will not fill many voters with confidence.
But supporters of the yes campaign would do well to acknowledge that the change they promise will not simply be delivered by a successful referendum. Any real change to how Scotland is governed will only be hard won, after difficult compromise and painful sacrifice. In this intense atmosphere, we might remember Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign, when he offered “Change you can believe in” to a country that desperately wanted it. Hindsight, however, has not been kind to this promise. Today, the approval ratings of the president are at dismal 41% – the lowest of any US president since the 1950s. The American political system is more ideologically divided than ever.
Yet we continue to imagine that someone else can make changes for us, while we carry on comfortably as always. Whatever the result of the referendum, once all of the emotional turmoil has settled, may all of us who long for real change across Scotland and the rest of the UK finally commit to getting down to work and trying to make that change happen.
Christopher Brittain
Aberdeen
• The issue of a timetable for further powers to the Scottish parliament is secondary. The primary concern is: “what powers?” There needs to be clarity on that before the referendum date. Otherwise the Scots are being offered the same pig in the same poke as in 1979. By 19 September, the three Westminster parties, whose recent record for probity is not to be relied on, will have no need to offer any more than the lowest common denominator at best. As a Scottish voter, why should I place any faith in their offering?
James Reid
Castle Douglas
• The polls suggest that the result of next Thursday’s referendum will leave approximately half of the population of Scotland profoundly unhappy. The polls also show that many people are still not clear about the relative merits of devo max and independence. In this context it doesn’t make any sense to have a single yes/no decision-making process. What is required is an opportunity to try one of the solutions, and then choose the other if the first proves to be unsatisfactory. Coupling a timetable for extensive devolution with an undertaking to hold a further referendum in (say) 10 years would offer this option.
Stephen Gardner
Manchester
• The coalition government failed to agree to bring in proportional representation for UK voters. Had it done so, Scots anywhere in the union could have voted SNP, indeed any UK voters could have voted SNP. This would have the effect of strengthening the influence at Westminster of Scotland and Scottish ideas about social and fiscal policy. That opportunity was lost but still could still offer a compromise, post-vote, that would enfranchise the Scottish diaspora and leaven the monotony of the first-past-the-post system. The current democratic deficit lies at the root of the Scottish yearning for a more equitable voting system, and explains the lamentable turnout at elections of the nation at large.
Craig Sams
Hastings, East Sussex
• How long has Westminster known about the Scottish referendum? How long has the Labour leadership been aware of the disastrous effect on the party that a yes vote will bring? How long has it taken for Ed Miliband to show himself in Scotland? We are now seeing the no strategy panic set in. I received an email yesterday from Labour asking for donations, or for volunteers to phone Scottish party members to ask them not to vote. Talk about too little, too late. Add to this Gordon Brown being asked to play Santa Claus to tempt the voters (with the very things they were asking for prior to any talk of a referendum), plus Ed Miliband’s apparent endorsement of guards strung along the Scottish border (nice one, Ed), and you have the perfect yes-voting storm.
As an expat Scot, I don’t relish the break up of the union, but if the country of my birth wants to beat a retreat from Westminster and from the Labour party’s apparent loss of memory regarding Scotland’s unswerving support of the Labour movement since its inception, then I can live with it.
Janet Fearnley
Farnham, Surrey
• Gordon Brown acknowledges (Report, 8 September) that it is proving “difficult” to win over Scots to stay in the UK because of anger at coalition policies on austerity and privatisation. Yet in the Better Together campaign Labour is in coalition with the coalition, giving credence to the very parties that are implementing austerity.
Even worse, should Labour win the general election in 2015 it too has committed to austerity policies to eliminate the budget deficit in the lifetime of one parliament, so twice as many cuts will take place in five years compared to the past five years. If the Scots don’t want to vote for austerity, why should any Briton vote for Labour and austerity in 2015?
Darrall Cozens
Coventry
• There is one thing Gordon Brown could do to show his support for devo max. He could pledge to stand for the Scottish parliament and offer himself as leader of Scottish Labour and possible first minister. That might just be too much of a two-edged sword.
Gerard McMullan
London
• A wonderfully insightful and splendidly unforgiving piece from Owen Jones (Whatever Scots decide the old order is dead and buried, 8 September). The simple truth is that there are only 5.3 million people living in Scotland and over 56 million living in England. Scotland has 59 MPs and England 533. Even allowing for Wales’s 40 and Northern Ireland’s 18, English interests outweigh the rest – as they have done for centuries. Domination may not be as savagely exercised as it once was, but it’s ever present.
So however much Cameron, Clegg, Darling et al prattle about a better together union of equals, population and parliamentary numbers indicate that if they triumph, Scotland will revert to being an afterthought. A yes vote make sense, as the imperative of shared interests will ensure independence brings a more effective alliance between the two nations than what is presently imposed by whoever is in power in Westminster. So other than those who can’t bear to let go of what they have long held, relentlessly exploited and taken for granted, we will all be winners.
Jim Gillan
Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
• I hope the Scots vote yes, because I fear the consequences for northern England should Scotland choose to stay in the union. Scotland already receives more public subsidy per head than its prosperity deserves. Promises (bribes) now being made by all major party leaders will have to be paid for. Is it likely that grandiose spending and capital schemes in the south-east, the nation’s so-called powerhouse, will be curtailed? No, the north, which contains many of the poorest areas in Britain, will pay the price.
I wish an independent Scotland every success in creating a fairer society, should it choose to go, but English people should not support any further (expensive) devolution should Scots choose to stay.
Mike Mosley
Norwich
• If bribery in the form of the belated offer of greater “devo max” doesn’t work let’s try blackmail. Shares set to slump on independence (Report, 8 September), homeowners at risk of a price crash, crisis worse than eurozone if Scotland votes yes. Some extracts from recent press. I hope my fellow Scots won’t let these shoddy tactics dissuade them from voting yes.
Dugald MacInnes
London
• Please do not separate Scotland from England. For us, Scotland and England are one. Both Scotland and England will suffer economically. When nations in Europe are banding together to make a bigger market, separation will reduce both economically and politically. Logistically there will be problems. It is a bit late don’t you think after 300 years? If you want to protect certain things you can negotiate for autonomy in certain areas. Don’t say yes to independence.
Dr S Sudarshan
Bangalore, India
;