Sir, – Lloyds and RBS have weighed into the Scottish independence debate with their threats to move their headquarters to London if the referendum is passed. Certainly this is precisely the sort of move “hard-headed” No voters would have feared and will likely increase their turnout. But will it also swell the ranks of the undecided voters voting Yes because they resent being dictated to by the banks? It will be a sad day for Scotland – and for democracy everywhere – if it turns out the banks had the final say on Scottish independence.
These banks deserve to be entirely wrong-footed by the rest of the UK leaving the EU following Scottish independence and losing their access to EU markets as a result. No doubt that would have them scurrying back to Scotland proclaiming they are Scottish after all.
What price democracy? – Yours, etc,
FRANK SCHNITTGER,
Red Lane,
Blessington,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – British prime minister David Cameron identifies himself with the United Kingdom (Front Page, September 11th) in terms of “I care more about my country than I care about my party”. Hogwash! He is an Englishman by geography, race and culture. The UK is an historical legal construct of which he is the head of government, but it is loose talk and spurious affiliation to refer to it as “my country”! – Yours, etc,
OLIVER McGRANE,
Marley Avenue,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – The Irish Times used the word "toff" to describe Scottish aristocracy ("Scottish toffs begin to sweat as referendum counts down", Front Page, September 12th). Toff is generally seen as a pejorative term to describe the upper classes. Unless The Irish Times feels it has been wronged by the Scottish aristocracy, I see no need for the derision. If your readers wanted judgemental reporting, they would stick to the redtops. Why not simply use the word "aristocracy " and allow your readers to decide whether or not this is a bad thing? – Yours, etc,
CONOR MURPHY,
Athlumney Wood,
Johnstown,
Navan,
Co Meath.
Sir, – Mr Cameron, Mr Milliband, please. A little decorum. No need to panic. Take your lead from us. If you don’t get the result you want, have a second, third and, dare I say it, a fourth referendum until you get the desired result. Works very well over here! – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL ROONEY,
Hillcrest Court,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.
Sir, – J Anthony Gaughan (September 12th), commenting on the Scottish referendum, whereby Scotland can embrace or reject independence at the stroke of a pen, claims the securing of Irish independence was at a very high price – “the wasteful and tragic shedding of blood”.
In the general election of 1918 and the setting up of the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, in a wholly constitutional and parliamentary decision without a drop of blood spilled, the Irish Parliamentary Party was swept from power by an electorate that espoused separatism and emphatically rejected not just home rule but British rule also. This decision rendered British rule in Ireland unlawful. The subsequent “wasteful and tragic shedding of blood” which followed was a result of British rejection of the democratic demands of the Irish people. – Yours, etc,
TOM COOPER,
Templeville Road,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
Sir, – If David Cameron can raise the saltire over 10 Downing Street (on whose authority I do not know), why cannot English nationalists raise the flag of England alongside the saltire in Edinburgh?
Obviously not without the explicit permission of Alex Salmond, battling valiantly against the Royal Bank of Scotland, Asda, Lord Prescott and his combined England/Scotland football team, heartbroken Dave Cameron (Eton), nice Boris Johnson (Eton), nice Nick Clegg (Westminster), the BBC, etc.
Even The Bruce might have been daunted. – Yours, etc,
Dr GERALD
MORGAN, FTCD
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Being married to a good Scots lass, I have been following that country's referendum debate with some interest for the last two years. The levels of dissimulation, disinformation and outright lying is something which only those of us old enough to remember Pravda can appreciate. However, the one chestnut which really should have been broken off the string by now is that hoary old one that Scotland ending the union would result in permanent Tory governments in Whitehall.
Quite apart from it not being Scotland’s problem, it’s simply claptrap. In the entire history of the party, only once, in 1964, was a Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs to make up the numbers, and that government lasted only 18 months in any event. Tony Blair won three general elections on the backs of purely English majorities, and no other Labour government has ever needed Scottish votes to take power.
There is, of course, another assumption underlying this supposition of permanent Tory majority – that a Labour government would somehow be different.
The Scots, I think, are increasingly falling out of love with that idea, which is possibly why Scottish membership of that party has fallen to an estimated 5,000 or so, compared to the SNP’s 25,000. I say “estimated” because the Labour Party in Scotland has repeatedly refused to reveal its membership numbers.
Perhaps it fears that by doing so, it would destroy that other myth that Scotland is somehow the property of the Labour Party. If so, it is wise. – Yours, etc,
DAVID SMITH,
Harmonstown Road,
Artane,
Dublin 5.
Sir, – If not now, when? – Yours, etc,
DAVID CURRAN,
Clybaun Heights,
Knocknacarra,
Galway.