Letters: SNP want to have their pound and spend it

Scottish �10 note. Pic: Comp
Scottish �10 note. Pic: Comp
Share this article
Have your say

There have been some very strange letters in the Evening News recently on the question of monetary union. Apparently some folk think that an independent Scotland should have its financial institutions underwritten by the central bank of a foreign country, ie the rest of the UK.

This is totally unreasonable, which is why rUK will not do it. If we want the rest of the UK to get us out of trouble in the future we should remain part of the UK. The reluctance of rUK to do this is described in the language of the playground as bullying, which is simply preposterous. The SNP seem to want to have their cake and eat it!

rUK is not stealing any assets from Scotland by taking this stance, while Scotland is threatening to walk away from its debts – an action which would ruin the financial reputation of a newly independent Scotland and mean that funding our huge deficit would be very expensive.

Nor is a vote for independence a vote for monetary union, as G Grainger (Letters, March 22) seems to think. Indeed, monetary union is anything but independence.

The SNP seem to be very aggrieved that we cannot continue to stay in a monetary union with rUK if we separate from the UK and yet at the same time they say they need control of all the levers of economic power. If this is true, why are they keen to give control of the currency to rUK – it really makes no sense at all.

It is deeply depressing that such a crucial subject, vital to the economic future of an independent country, is discussed in such puerile and insulting terms, but it is typical of the SNP approach to so many key issues, where they will do anything and say anything rather than deal with the question and explain the issue to people.

Instead they bury their heads in the sand and claim it is all a bluff.

Donald McBride, Craigleith Hill Crescent, Edinburgh

Events in Ukraine mean it’s time to frack

Energy security, rather than climate change, is now dominating Europe’s energy agenda due to events in the Ukraine.

The European Commission was told to quickly find a way to cut dependence on Russian gas and to put on hold targets for CO2 reductions.

Michael Fallon, Britain’s Energy Minister, said President Vladimir Putin’s intervention in the Ukraine demonstrated why Britain had to reduce its dependence on gas imports from “unstable” regions, such as Russia. US exports of gas and European development of shale gas will be prominent on the agenda at the EU-US summit.

William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, has argued that Europe must push ahead with fracking to reduce EU dependence on Russian gas.

Germany’s energy security is already compromised by dependence on Russian gas.

European governments are waking up to the reality that expensive and intermittent electricity from wind farms have failed to prevent an ever increasing dependence on gas imports to keep the lights on.

Europe must immediately stifle the rantings of the green zealots and the anti-fracking rent-a-mob and push ahead with getting Europe’s abundant shale gas out of the ground.

Clark Cross, Springfield Road, Linlithgow

Independence for one is independence for all

Alun Thomas asks (Letters, March 24) if there is a ‘Yes’ vote will places that vote ‘No’ be allowed to join England?

One could also ask that if the vote is ‘No’ would areas that voted ‘Yes’ be allowed to become independent? The answer to both questions is no.

If a country votes to become independent, then the entire country becomes independent and there is no opting out for places that voted against.

Has the tragedy of the partition of Ireland and the trouble that caused passed him by?

Charmaine Lamont, Magdalene Avenue, Edinburgh

Our licensing laws need to grow up too

With the Chancellor’s Budget admirably treating people as responsible adults in managing their own retirement finances, maybe our Scottish Government will show us similar respect by abolishing the insulting nonsense of banning stores from selling alcohol for 12 hours in the day.

Most people will use their pension pots sensibly, with few blowing the lot on luxuries. Similarly, most of us drink sensibly. Neither the specific hours nor their total have any logical merit. Those stupid enough to drink dangerous amounts will do so outwith the silly 10pm-10am ban or within it (having purchased supplies by 9.59pm).

A law which inconveniences the majority to control the minority – even if it succeeds in that purpose – is an example of lazy political practice. Presumably statistics are now available showing the extent of success so far - might we be informed?

Robert Dow, Ormiston Road, Tranent