The two areas mentioned specifically are mainly Tory and LibDem respectively (ie Tory Lite) so how would that work? Imagine the democratic conundrum that would be thrown up by areas partitioning themselves off on vote preferences. Anyone who would ever suggest such a thing must be a racist, to start with, an agent provocateur and a fascist, by inclination.
READ MORE: Scottish Tory councillor calls for Scotland to be partitioned after Yes vote
First things first. Scotland, when the Treaty of Union was signed, held both those territories in absolute right. In other words, they were part of Scotland pre-Union, and were never, ever reassigned to England. How would they be partitioned off? As self-governing areas or to England, which I think is the inference? That would nullify the Treaty immediately and constitute a breach of international law to the extent that it would be construed as a declaration of war on Scotland. It is undoubtedly how many Scots would see it.
At no time in modern history have Scots and English shared these areas, and they did not share them pre-Union, albeit many English have migrated to both these areas very recently in historical terms, post the latter half of the 20th century. Although a DNA study showed that Orkney and Shetland does have a Scandi influence, it also showed a Scottish influence. A partition towards Norway might make a bit more sense than towards England, which, again, one must assume is the real aim.
READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: The implications of partitioning Scotland after Yes vote
The SNP came a close second to the LibDems in Orkney and Shetland, and have a strong presence in the Borders, too.
If you want to provoke real dissension and, perhaps, even armed conflict, you could not make a more stupid, ignorant and racist suggestion than partitioning Scotland along those lines.
What newspaper letter-writer NJ Cameron was seeing when he saw great swathes of blue was the empty blue space – natural colour grey – behind his eyes, I think. As for Councillor Andrew Wood...
In reference to another piece in The National, by Stephen Paton, which also touches on a different kind of colonial takeover attempt, perhaps Stephen could tell us all in their next piece why access to female sex-based spaces and rights is so crucial to being a trans woman because, oddly, not all trans woman feel that need (Moral panic over trans rights fuelled by misinterpretation, June 7)? Also, could they tell us just which rights trans people don’t have that the rest of us do, which human rights they don’t have? That would make interesting reading.
IN his letter (June 9), Barry Stewart mentions other monarchies with no more rights or exemptions than anyone else. That was how the Scottish monarchy was. It was an egalitarian monarchy and the monarch was the first among equals, on a par with his people, and because of this there was no “bowing or scraping.” The people could speak to the monarch on a man-to-man basis and had the right to remove him if he failed in his duties and replace him with another member of the royal house.
Some of the most egalitarian countries in Europe happen to be monarchies – the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden etc – and there are pictures of the King of Norway travelling by tram, the Queen of Denmark going into MacDonalds and the King and Queen of the Netherlands coming out of the shops with their messages. That would be the kind of monarchy I would like for an independent Scotland.
If there is a referendum on whether we should be a monarchy or a republic, I hope there will be an additional question asking that if we are to be a monarchy, do we continue to share a monarch or do we have one of our own. I know what one I would vote for.
I READ with total amazement the article by Michael Fry (June 7) saying he believes the majority of Scots would vote to keep the monarchy.
My reply is “Aye, right!” I would certainly vote to keep the monarchy in an independent Scotland if the Queen’s total income was divided up and shared out among the Scottish population.
I don’t have anything against the Queen or her family, but I think the idea of a royal family is an anachronism, and has no place in a modern state.
READ MORE: Michael Fry: Why the majority of Scots would, despite its flaws, vote to keep the monarchy
DOES The National persist in printing Mr Fry’s opinions just to annoy readers? I rarely come away from reading his words with a good feeling. I know the Yes movement is a broad church but can we not find a better advocate for independence than this man?
His latest statement that most Scots would like to keep the royals was the final straw for me. In future I’m going to skim past his page. Rant over.