To The Daily Telegraph
Alex Salmond says that the Bank of England was set up by the UK as a whole and for the UK as a whole, including the part that he would like to become independent. He therefore deduces that in the event of a “Yes” vote, the Bank of England should continue to be a shared resource.
He also talks of the exploitation of North Sea oil, which was set up by the UK as a whole and for the UK as a whole, including the part that he would like to become independent. He deduces that in the event of a “Yes” vote, North Sea oil should be wholly a Scottish resource.
Can anyone spot a flaw in his logic?
Peter Brett, Belfast
Nationalism is dangerous and is usually more about emotion than logic and fact. The Scottish debate has generated more heat than light. The Scots are no wiser now than they were when they began, although they are unaware that they are unaware. For all their so-called superior education when difficulties are explained they don’t seem to want to understand (see the Krugman article on this blog). Immoderation is un-Epicurean, and this is an immoderate moment. Even in now the unlikely event that the “No’s” marginally win, we will never hear the end of nationalist blah. Where the majority let their hearts rule their heads it is probably wise to let them get on with it and leave the rest of us alone.
The UK has followed a US-led policy of actively intervening in the world, which I, and many YES supporters believe is bad because it corrupts us and urges us to intervene for our own ends. Independence for Scotland would be a chance to break away from that and start afresh – with policies such as scrapping Trident (which we will never use and costs a fortune), cutting defence spending and staying neutral in world conflicts. How would you respond to the argument that independence is good because of a chance to have a new foreign policy, that could serve as a model for the UK to eventually copy?
Well, let us agree that a peaceable foreign policy is a good thing and that we ought to keep our noses out of other people’s business as much as possible.
Unfortunately, things are never totally simple. Firstly, over the centuries, starting with the Crusaders, we have, for instance, interfered in the Middle East. You and I would never have accepted the League of Nations Mandate over Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, but Britain and France did, and the disruption that caused is still reverberating. If you go to Cairo you will see ads for companies from all over the world, in flashing neon lights – and not a single British one can you see. We are still heartily disliked in Egypt for the occupation long before we were both you born, and in Glasgow for Bannockburn and other perceived injuries even more centuries before. Memories are long and take no account of politicians claiming a “new start”. Obama has tried really hard to keep out of trouble spots and reset US foreign policy along more pacific lines (getting into hot water from the love-a-war crowd), but it seems it is really difficult. He is seen as weak, and thugs like Putin take advantage of his policy. It is not a very nice world!
But surely what Obama is doing, and what the Scots would do under independence, is better than the neoconservative foreign policy that has dominated both British and American politics since the 80s? Even if we are still hated, it is never too late to try and make amends?
I can go along with that! Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
To The Daily Telegraph
I am one of the 645,000 people born in Scotland who have no vote in the referendum, as I’m domiciled in England. I have a Scottish birth certificate, my mother was Scottish, and I was educated at Aberdeen University. What would my citizenship status be after a “Yes” vote?
John Hawley, Ruislip, Middlesex
Quite right, Owen. What catastrophic foreign policy debacles the U.S. has precipitated. All the more tragic that the UK did not turn toward Europe rather than the U.S and the pathetic “special relationship.”