Email
I am surprised that in all the hubbub about Scottish secession from the United Kingdom, so little reference has been made to the 19th-century American experience. For instance, Abraham Lincoln’s first presidential inaugural address (4 March 1861), a passionate plea to avoid civil war, demonstrates the immense relevance of that experience to our difficulties. He said to the Southern states, and seems to be saying to Scotland:
“Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?”
The implications of this, for us are plain. What is at stake is not just the Act of Union but the future of all the people of the island of Britain, who cannot but remain face to face (as Lincoln puts it). If the Scottish Nationalists are serious about reform, they should demand that the whole British people come together to exercise their constitutional right of amending their government. All other courses, including secession and “devo max”, threaten all of us with years of disorder, and no satisfactory outcome, perhaps, at the end.
I hope that the Scots, whose nationalist leaders seem so indifferent to anything except their own immediate interests, will vote no on referendum day; and then that all of us Britons can elect a constitutional assembly to address the problems so dismally threatening our future together – a future which, I repeat, is, as Lincoln helps us to see, inescapable.
Hugh Brogan
Research professor of history, University of Essex
• My great-grandfather Keir Hardie, one of the founder members of the Independent Labour party, believed passionately in the concept of home rule but also in a socialist party built on solidarity and unity. Salmond and co are cynical with their half-truths about creating a state where social mobility and welfare for the poor will flourish. North Sea oil, which is beginning to sound as large as the North Sea itself, will need investment to maintain and will eventually dry out. Businesses may well come on low corporation tax but will they stay if their profits are capped? And if they do, will they reinvest their profits in the economy or do as they are doing elsewhere in the world keep them in-house or move them elsewhere to some safe tax haven?
Nationalism fosters insularity and hostility. However, we have a grumpy neighbour. I have spent 50 years in education and counselling and know that one difficult kid can bring the class down. Eventually you have to open the door and tell them to go. The rest of the class thrive in their absence, as the UK will do. We are an intelligent, determined nation and have survived far worse than this.
Kate Axford
Selby, Yorkshire
• I recall that the Guardian initiated a letter-writing campaign to US voters prior to the 2004 presidential election (Report, 22 October 2004). I wish to respond to voters in the British Isles and suggest that Scottish citizens vote in favour of independence. This is a historic moment. This is your chance to utterly and totally transform the British Isles. You are the change that you’ve been waiting for. Since 2008 the citizens of the United States have had so much hope and change that it wouldn’t be right to keep it all on this side of the Atlantic. Next weekend I urge all eligible voters in Scotland to break the chains that bind you to the English and Welsh. Assert yourselves and go forward.
Depending on the outcome, Welsh citizens might consider a referendum of their own.
Martha Furman Kojro
Rolla, Missouri, USA
• The campaign has been brilliant to observe and seemingly galvanising for all those who can vote. We should thank those who made the referendum possible. And as the vote draws near, one central issue has been thrown into stark relief – simply, as the no campaign demonstrates, across all its arguments, that the rUK currently subsidises Scotland and in exchange Scotland sends 40 or so Labour MPs to Westminster – is this the sustainable deal all the citizens of the UK freely buy into? Are the unemployed, the strained social services, the poor housing, the old and infirm, the health services, the universities in the rUK better serviced by the subsidies and disproportionate allocation of public funds to Scotland than a new partnership with an independent Scotland?
As Madeleine Bunting points out (Comment, 10 September) there is a huge opportunity for reinvention of politics, of identity, of new alliances; let us hope that Scotland will seize the opportunity and help propel the whole of the UK into a new age of enlightened politics.
Howard Williams
London
• More letters on the independence debate at gu.com/scotland-letters
;