Bad example, Stan
No doubt Singaporeans enjoy “peace and prosperity” but as The Scotsman (International, 24 March) article made clear, it comes at a cost.
Noticeably Singapore also has high quality public services; especially a high degree of low-cost social housing. There are, however, government restrictions on free speech and political activity, with somewhat “draconian” defamation laws which stifle meaningful opposition.
Is it imaginable that Orchard Street would host thousands of people marching in protest in the way we can in George Square or Holyrood?
Would, for example, the half a million or so Scots identified recently as living in “severe poverty” be prepared to exchange “essential freedoms” for “prosperity”? A similar question is currently ongoing regarding the need for enhanced security in an increasingly “dangerous world”.
Arguably, this is an age-old dilemma but do we really have to choose between “essential freedoms” and economic prosperity and increasing measures for security?
Old Chapel Walk
I am a little baffled by Stan Grodynski’s letter, in which he cites Singapore as a small country which became highly economically successful after achieving independence, and, by implication, one that Scotland should aspire to.
Apart from its atrocious record on freedom of speech and detaining opponents without trial, Singapore has its own currency.
An independent Scotland would, apparently, be using the pound sterling, and thus have no control over its value.
Although I suppose one major SNP financial backer would agree with their standing on criminalisation of gay sex.
Donna McBeath Smith