GEOFF Hobson (Letters, March 19) argues that the case for compensation from the UK for the squandering of Scotland’s oil is “morally flawed”, “unreasonable” and “greedy”. His argument seems to rest on equating the nation of Scotland with regions – he mentions Cornwall and Shetland.

If that were so then Scotland would no more have a right to leave the UK than Merseyside or the West Midlands would have the right to secede.

Perhaps Mr Hobson rejects the whole nation/region distinction but it is fundamental not only to Scottish nationalism but also to British nationalism/Unionism and indeed to the nationalism (or “patriotism” as President Macron likes to call his French nationalism) of most mainstream political parties.

The key moral issue here is that the UK Government lied repeatedly to what it itself claims to believe is a constituent nation of a supposedly multinational state. And it did so in order to prevent Scotland demanding independence or at least control over the oil funds. Thus it has a moral obligation to compensate, just as any organisation which lies to an individual or group for financial gain does.

As to the claim that it would have been greedy for Scotland not to have given the bulk of its oil wealth to its neighbour, one of the richest nations in the world, it’s hardly worth wasting breath on such a ludicrous claim. One might well say Norway should give a higher proportion of its wealth to the poorest nations of the world, but to hold it blameworthy for not handing two-thirds of its wealth to Sweden (which it was part of until 1905 and is twice its size) is preposterous. Everyone can see that with regard to Norway but Scotland, it seems, doesn’t have the same rights as other nations. That’s a consistent position to adopt if you think Scotland is a mere region of Ukania/GB/England, but if Mr Hobson thinks that why on earth does he supporting independence?

Alan Weir
Barrhead

CONGRATULATIONS to Geoff Hobson for supporting Scotland’s independence fight. However, his argument as to where Scotland’s oil revenue should be spent is hilarious. Westminster has made sure Scotland will never receive any oil benefits, then, now or in future.

He maintains that when oil was discovered in the North Sea, Scotland was not a country in its own right but a part of the UK. He fails to state when all that changed, not that it has by Westminster’s assumed authority. But Mr Hobson does express himself in a variety of “what ifs”. Scotland never had the chance to expect oil revenue to be spent on the poor of Scotland at the time he refers to. There was no Holyrood parliament and so far as Westminster was concerned about its oil wealth, that was buried forever as we all now understand, 60 years on. His hypothesis of oil being discovered in Cornwall is just that, hypothetical and a wasted point of view. And his reference to Shetland and Aberdeen in the same breath derisively.

We all agree that upon Scotland’s independence its oil will belong to Scotland. But his theory that Westminster should manage current oil revenue equitably is laughable.

I too am English, living in Scotland for only nine years, but think I have more respect for my new country than what Mr Hobson appears to have.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

REGARDING the letter from Geoff Hobson, English Yes voter. The argument for “repayment for Scotland’s missing oil fund ... and squandered oil revenues” is absolutely correct. NONE of the oil money was used for the benefit of Scotland.

The oil revenues (90% from Scottish waters) were taken in whole by Westminster (a parliament under English law) and the 91% kept by London was spent on massive infrastructure projects: the M25; Crossrail; Canary Wharf; the Channel Tunnel and accompanying railway (and possibly also the Thames Barrier and others).

The 8.2% of the revenues was not given to Scotland but spent by Mrs Thatcher with no consultation, wholly on closing down Scottish industries and paying for the redundancy and dole monies – no infrastructure projects of any sort. Oil was accounted an import to Scotland (ie Scotland was not part of the UK in that sense).

The population of Scotland at the time of the enforced Treaty of Union was 25% of England’s. 300-plus years of Clearances, use of Scots as “cannon fodder”, genocide, enforced emigration (even the “homes fit for heroes” after the First World War were for Scots to be in Canada, Australia etc, though Scotland lost twice as many by proportion – one in five – as Britain as a whole) has reduced this to 8.2%.

The size of Scotland, with its huge coast etc, requires much more for infrastructure, but only the reduced population counts.

The last points about Scotland’s waters are galling because the 1999 theft of 6,000 square miles of Scottish waters, with oil wells and fishing, was not to”UK” (actually English law) but to English jurisdiction. I can find no actions ever by the Westminster Parliament that are to the benefit of the people, and resources, of Scotland – only neglect at best and persistent exploitation, damage, degradation and sabotage with a view to draining Scotland of life.

Susan Forde
Scotlandwell

INTERESTING letter from Geoff Hobson, but it would appear that he missed the point which was made in the article regarding revenue from North Sea oil – “had Scotland been independent”! Further, when oil was discovered it was in internationally recognised Scottish waters. The UK quickly re-designated those waters as UK and the UK Treasury has gathered all the revenue from North Sea Oil since.

Misappropriation of those revenues has been staggering! I totally agree with Mr Hobson when he writes “use the wealth wisely and equitably for the benefit of the whole country/state”. Scotland officially receives no benefit from oil revenues in the same way we received no revenue from Cornish tin and other English/Welsh/Northern Irish assets, nor did we ask for any. We do, however, in a caring, sharing, way pay, from memory, £4.5 billion annually to English, and subsequently UK, debt – some accrued prior to Union, even though former Chancellor George Osborne admitted it was completely Westminster responsibility.

I don’t agree with this talk of compensation. A free Scotland, receiving its population share of UK assets, and living in harmony with its neighbours, will do for me! Imagine if all the countries that had been fortunate enough to have their assets stripped by the UK demanded reparation! I welcome Mr Hobson choosing to live in Scotland and his support for our independence but he should be aware that the deviousness of Westminster is beyond the imagination of most of us – look at the disgraceful deception foisted on people in the UK regarding the madness of Brexit!

Bill McLean
via email