Sir, – A Yes vote in Scotland would be a disaster for England and Wales. It would condemn them to permanent Tory rule. Does Alex Salmond want that? – Yours, etc,
TERENCE ORR,
Rowan Hamilton Court,
Cabra,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – With independence for Scotland becoming a very real possibility, would it be an appropriate time to suggest a radical new proposal for the governance of the western flank of these islands? It is a proposal that, if endorsed by the governments of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland, might finally bring about the true reconciliation of the political, religious, cultural and industrial traditions of our 12 million people. The proposal for the setting up a confederation (or even a more formal federation) of the three political entities is not rooted in some misty-eyed dream of a “Celtic” counterbalance to the political dominance of England within what was, in former times, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland but is a practical suggestion on how best to secure long-term peace and prosperity on the northwestern fringe of the European Union in a post-independence scenario.
Such a confederation would have a quarter of the population of these islands and would make up some half of its land mass.
From an economic standpoint, a union of three states with a combined population of some 12 million people would have considerable clout. The current situation where the three governments compete with each other for foreign investment is, self-evidently, in no one country’s best interests. Furthermore, the recent travails Ireland has endured demonstrate all too clearly the fragility of the economic independence of small nations (albeit badly managed ones) where they find themselves at the mercy of troikas that are far more concerned with the stability of the big economic powerhouses in Europe and further afield than with effecting a swift recovery in the countries they are charged to “help”.
Working together, a union of the three states could, in time, become an economic powerhouse in its own right. This is not fanciful. The region has vast natural resources in oil, wind and wave power and it has highly fertile lands and seas that have already spawned a world-class food-based economy.
All three existing states have also been highly successful in attracting some of the world’s leading companies in information technology and pharmaceuticals, in particular – and given that our populations are already among the best educated in the world, the potential for future success is boundless.
Equally, if not more, compelling in making the case for a future union is the quest for a resolution to our political arrangements. The current arrangement on the island of Ireland, while it has produced a very welcome period of comparative peace, continues to leave all traditions on the island with something less than an ideal outcome. Nationalists and republicans still cling to the ideal of a future union of north and south, while unionists of all hues find themselves uneasy about the future of the existing British union in a state where the demographics are against them and the greatest threat to that union comes not from the nationalists within but from those a short distance away across the north channel. That those who now most threaten the union are, for the most part, their own kith and kin can only add to the sense of unease. The confederation of three states proposed would provide “the best of all worlds” for all the traditions in both Ireland and Scotland. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL SEXTON,
Shanakiel,
Cork.
Sir, – I am amazed that the people in Scotland do not realise how fortunate they are. We in Ireland achieved independence at a very high price – the wasteful and tragic shedding of blood. On referendum day every Scot can win independence at the stroke of a pen. – Yours, etc,
J ANTHONY GAUGHAN,
Newtownpark Avenue,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Your editorial “Scotland’s moment” was invigorating (September 9th). You state correctly that “independence can indeed be good for Scotland”. The referendum campaign has reawakened an interest in real politics and democracy in Scotland, and London has been caught sadly napping.
The Act of Union of 1707 has failed, as has been evident since the Depression in the 1930s in which Scotland, so dependent upon the great industries of the 19th century, suffered severely. It was only a matter of time before the Scots acquired a huge desire for independence and separateness from the English. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK O’BYRNE,
Shandon Crescent,
Phibsborough,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – As in so many similar instances, the most preferred option of the Scottish people (“devo-max”) is not on the ballot paper. It is now being offered by the leaders of the three main Westminster parties in a frantic attempt to arrest the drift towards a Yes result.
The referendum and its underlying logic of the majority vote are well past their sell-by date as a means to establish the will of the people. As a method of national self-determination it is deeply flawed and even dangerous.
If, as now seems inevitable, Scotland “decides” by a slender margin, how can this be seen as a democratic mandate for either change or status quo when so many are clearly of another opinion?
All that is confirmed is that the debate is complex, multifaceted and unresolved. At worst it is a mechanism for conflict generation and ensures no collective agreement.
Complex questions abound and they deserve to be addressed and, if possible, resolved through methods that allow for such complexity, include minority perspectives, and that do not silence dissent.
The referendum is a crude, capricious cudgel incapable of reflecting the complexities of modern life and politics. There are other options. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP KEARNEY,
Richmond Road,
Dublin 3.