Listen to this article

00:00
00:00

Sir, Readers of your numerous columns and editorials on Scottish independence would be hard pushed to see even one positive reason for it.

Gideon Rachman (“A very bad time to break up the UK”, Comment, September 15) annoyed to the point of withering sarcasm that the Scots may want democratic self-determination, and that they may considering independence could deliver more social justice than 35 years of neoliberalism in the UK.

Philip Stephens (“The world is saying No to Scottish separation”, Comment, September 11) tells us no one in the world supports Scotland’s independence bid. Yet I have talked to people from India to Europe who are more open, and interested in the idea that the independence campaign represents a democratic renewal – at a time of deep political alienation – not a nationalistic reversion.

Only Janan Ganesh (“Gifted amateurism is no foundation for a united kingdom”, Comment, September 15) more subtly sees that the social and cultural arguments for the UK are weak, not only a failure of the “Better Together” campaign, and that the real problem raised by independence and by the promised greater devolution after a No vote is England and its governance.

The Financial Times, usually so sharp on its EU analysis, cannot even see why a country whose citizens and businesses are already in the EU would most likely agree a deal to be the 29th EU state on the day England and Scotland formally split (“Scotland’s fateful choice, September 10”). That the UK has come so close to the exit door of the EU and that England leaving the EU is the US’s biggest fear is indeed a significant geopolitical shift. But Scotland is not to blame for England’s shrill euroscepticism, fanned by David Cameron, and barely held in check by New labour in its years in power.

Ms Kirsty Hughes, London, UK

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2017. All rights reserved.
myFT

Follow the topics mentioned in this article