Readers' Letters: Britain prospered when borders receded

In her letter (November 23), Marianna Clyde makes selective use of history in an attempt to demonstrate that Scotland is intrinsically different from the rest of the UK.

There is another view of history which demonstrates that the British islands shares much in common and that it has prospered when borders have receded.

Ms Clyde states that Scotland is an "ancient nation", but Alba only came into existence in the ninth century - and only then above the Forth-Clyde line. Before the Roman invasion the British island was home to a multitude of Celtic tribes and kingdoms.

After the Romans departed, society collapsed and eventually reconfigured into about a dozen mutating kingdoms that fought and merged. The area now called Scotland contained Scots in Dalriada (Argyll); Picts in the area from Fife to Orkney; Britons in Strathclyde (which stretched from Dumbarton to Cumbria); Angles in the Lothians and Borders (once part of Northumbria); and Norse-Gaels in the kingdom of the isles - who saw Norway as their overlords.

When Northumbria completed a unified England in the 10th century it was only three centuries until a further "merger" was rejected at Bannockburn. But that led to three centuries of war that resulted in the border marches descending into a lawless zone of robbery, rape and murder. It was only on the Union of the Crowns that peace began to be introduced and later the Act of Union brought increased prosperity and eventually (through the Empire) considerable wealth.

Many of today's English regions (seven of which have larger populations than Scotland) are roughly co-terminus with the old post-Roman kingdoms and if descendants of Saxons, Angles and Vikings can get on together why can't Picts and Scots get on with Anglo-Saxons?

Why the need for the nine per cent of the UK population that makes up Scotland to emphasise their differences rather than find common ground with the others on the island with whom they have evolved for a thousand years?

Peter Lewis, Albert Terrace, Edinburgh

Let fans back in

Scottish Football is staring into the abyss. We have got to get fans back into the grounds.

Club chairmen are not arguing for packed stadiums but appropriate, socially distanced gates with all relevant hygiene measures and stewarding in place.

While a rescue package from the UK government is long overdue, one has to query why, five months after worldwide research by WHO found that this virus does not transmit outdoorswe are still having this debate.

What exactly did 300 socially distanced fans at 22,000-capacity Pittodrie tell anyone or the tiny crowds in Level 1 venues?

Surely 5000 fans at 12,000-capacity East End Park in winter gloves, scarves and beanies can safely be seated with entry/dispersal staggered and no hospitality on offer? There was no spike when half a million turned up at mobbed Bournemouth beach in June.

The Scottish government is correct in insisting that, for the foreseeable future, away fans must not travel across Scotland, but most clubs are gaining from streaming matches at £12 per game.

Indeed, a few in Leagues 1 and 2 have attracted more viewers than last season's comparable attendances! Streaming must continue once the crisis eases. Fans unwilling to travel long distances to a match will gladly fork out to view their team away.

Clubs outwith the Premiership are most vulnerable to a massive hit financially in a country where 43% of their income is a Saturday match day attendance and UEFA states we have the most inequitable income distribution in Europe.

Yes, the UK government looks after its own with the £300m sports winter package to help English spectator games (football £28m) coming on top of the £16m rescue package for English Rugby League, £5m in Scotland would be transformational.

With a proportion of the above aid coming to Scotland, Joe Fitzpatrick, Sports Minister, must give us some clarity.

If he were to emulate England and allow up to 4000 to attend,eg in Scottish Levels 1 and 2; he might, in a football mad country, inadvertently, incentivise that minority whose compliance in Levels 3 and 4 is a concern.

John V Lloyd, Keith Place, Inverkeithing, Fife

Virus overreach

I begin to wonder if Professor Jason Leitch is being blinded by the limelight he appears not to find too discomfiting.

He said on BBC's Good Morning Scotland that in an advisory meeting he "pushed back" against other medical officers advising a continuing lockdown over Christmas. We should remember that Professor Leitch's main background is in dentistry as opposed to epidemiology, which is the specialism of other advisers such as Chris Whitty.

He told us that if the question is, "How do we stop the virus?', the answer is "close your door and stay in the house". But if the question includes stopping Covid and other factors such as "keeping the economy moving" the answer is "harder" - and different apparently.

I would have thought that any advice a medical adviser proposes should relate purely to medical issues. Decisions affected by considerations such as keeping the economy moving are surely in the domain of the politicians.

It is not so long since the professor was telling us to expect a "digital Christmas". What has changed to make him "push back"? Could it be that his pronouncement went down with the public like a lead balloon? Perhaps someone has been on the phone to him.

The recent figures on deaths from Covid in Scotland make for distressing reading and seriously question the SNP's handling of the crisis. It would be disturbing if this was the result of decisions being made for reasons other than the scientific advice.

Colin Hamilton, Braid Hills Avenue, Edinburgh

Late lunch

I am delighted that the SNP has promised two free meals a day for all primary pupils.

Will that promise be implemented before the pledge from 2007 to cut class sizes to 18? Or for that matter, the one to abolish the unfair council-tax?

Fourteen years is a long time to wait for election commitments to be fulfilled. If the SNP takes the same length of time to bring in free school breakfasts and dinners, today's primary pupils will not receive a single crumb, though their grandchildren just might.

Jane Ann Liston, Largo Road, St Andrews, Fife

Targeting support

We learn the British taxpayer, via the SNP administration, is to provide free school breakfasts and lunches every day of the year to every primary school child in Scotland. A universal, untargeted benefit.

Take Edinburgh as an example. The children of its many middle class parents - bankers, lawyers, senior civil servants, company bosses - many living in homes worth over £500,000, will benefit. Is this fair or even a sensible use of public funds?

How about instead some sensible targeting to those less well off so more cash can be spent where needed? Or is this really about Nicola Sturgeon, ever mindful of next year's Holyrood election, trying to capture a few more votes in middle class constituencies?

Martin Redfern, Melrose Roxburghshire

Overseas aid

The Archbishop of Canterbury was quick to tweet that the temporary cut in the Overseas Aid Budget to 0.5% of GDP is “shameful and wrong”. That’s a cut from about £15bn to £10bn, less as GDP reduces.

His church has assets of over £8bn but only 0.75m people attend Church of England Sunday services.

When Justin Welby takes a sabbatical next year, he should take time to reflect how some of that money can be used to help the world’s poor, not just his dwindling organisation.

HM government has already spent huge sums funding vaccine research and the results will benefit many worldwide – that’s foreign aid to my mind, too.

Charity, though, begins at home. The UK should help itself while helping those overseas. One way is to gift British-made products to British charities to give to worthwhile projects overseas.

Such products would boost companies in our islands, provide employment and help the poor overseas, resulting in higher tax take for the Treasury and fewer benefit payments – a multiple win-win.

Lester May, Camden Town, London

Railroad ends

Your editorial (November 28) claims the SNP can’t railroad the UK into Indyref2.

Railroading means having something forced through either unjustly or without proper regard for those affected. I would argue that it is the UK government that is guilty of railroading Scotland by forcing us out of the EU against our will and passing the Internal Market bill against the wishes of all three devolved governments, a bill that will eviscerate the Scottish Parliament

Jacob Rees-Mogg recently verbalised Tory contempt for Scotland when he said devolution must be undone to restore the ‘unwritten’ constitution.

This has resulted in consistent and rising support for restoring Scottish independence. Scots know our 59 MPs will never be heard over 533 English MPs and we know we can manage our own affairs far better than Westminster’s disastrous performance.

Decades of Tory economic mismanagement have left Scotland with the lowest life expectancy of any west European nation, the lowest state pension in the OECD, increased levels of poverty, and some of the greatest income inequality in the developed world.

An independent Scotland can begin to undo this damage by investing in its people and utilising its abundant natural resources wisely to build for a sustainable future.

Perhaps it can even provide a model for our southern neighbour about what good governance can achieve.

Leah Gunn Barrett, Merchiston Crescent, Edinburgh