Spectator letters: How to save the Union; who cares for Paolozzi’s murals

A disaster for unionists

Sir: I share Alex Massie’s view that ‘this election is going to be a disaster’ for us unionists (‘Divided we fall’, 28 February). It is almost too painful to recall that it will mark the 60th anniversary of a great victory in May 1955 when the Tories, standing as Scottish Unionists, won more seats north of the border than their opponents and helped give Anthony Eden a secure majority. Under the baleful influence of George Osborne, who could not care less about the constitution, there seems little chance that the Tories will redeem themselves by proposing the one remaining policy that could save the Union: a new constitutional settlement for the UK based on the federal model. Osborne’s Tories are wholly preoccupied with their so-called long-term economic plan. A genuine long-term plan for the constitution ought to be the overriding priority.
Alistair Lexden

House of Lords, London SW1

Nationalists’ sham

Sir: If the SNP ends up as kingmaker at Westminster, the main parties have only themselves to blame. During the referendum campaign they refused to point out that the nationalist case was a complete sham. The SNP wanted Scotland’s currency to be controlled by London or Frankfurt, its passport to be an EU not a Scottish one, its Scottish system of law to be subordinate to European law, and the vast majority of its legislation to continue to originate in Brussels. But the press and the major parties refuse to deconstruct Scottish nationalism. Given The Spectator’s support of Britain remaining in the EU, what real difference does it make if Scotland has a separate presence there or if it is run from Brussels as part of a larger province called the UK?
Alan Sked

Professor of International History, LSE,

London WC2