Does it matter what Borg thinks?

OK, so back to my thoughts on EU Commissioner Borg's thoughts on why Scotland would have to apply to join the EU.

To set this in context, this Commissioner is from the EU's smallest Member State, Malta. Malta has a population of 0.4 Million - roughly the size of Edinburgh and representing 0.1% of the EU's population. Mr Borg is a former Foreign Minister of Malta. Mr Borg is appointed by his Government to work in the interests of the EU as a Commissioner, and is responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, issues of vital importance to Scotland.

You would think, as someone who has come from the perspective of a very small nation in Europe which successfully acceeded to the EU, Mr Borg would be far less sceptical of the probability of Scotland's membership. It may have taken the accession countries some time to join, but many were coming from a very different position than that of Scotland for a number of historical reasons.

Scotland is already subject to EU laws and is a constituent part of an EU member state. There would not have any significant adjustments made to prepare for membership; we are in a sense already there. In addition, Scotland would is of significant value to the EU in terms of land mass, industry, oil and security. In reality, on what grounds could an independent Scotland see EU membership withheld or delayed?

Attacked for something I didn't really say

I'm not sure whether to be amused or angry today - I think I've been quoted out of context!

Those who follow the Scotsman letters page might have noticed a to and fro of letters from one Mr Hamilton D Wilkin and I, concerning independence. So far, he's been fretting over whether or not the sky will fall on his head, and I've been (I think) fairly sensible. Today, however, Mr Wilkin took things too far.

Alison Thewliss (Letters, 9 March) uses the word "illogical". What an appropriate word to describe the policy of the SNP towards corporation tax. It proposes to reduce this tax by a third, thus giving Scottish businesses such a boost that eventually so much more profit is made that the revenue from this tax actually increases.

Can anyone name a chancellor who has actually reduced a tax to increase revenue or, presumably, increased a tax to reduce revenue? A few other words come to mind that may apply to this policy such as "ill-considered", "ill-founded", "illusioned", etc.

HAMILTON D WILKIN, Sauchenbush Road, Kirkcaldy

I never mentioned corporation tax in any of my previous letters. What I actually said was:

Hamilton D Wilkin (Letters, 8 March) persists in his illogical line of argument. If companies leave Scotland, fail to grow, or stay away, that does not make our economy a success; it reflects poorly on the role of the Union in our economy. I am sure it is no coincidence that the International Monetary Fund finds the wealthiest European nations, per head of population, are the small but independent nations of Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Iceland, and Denmark. The UK isn't even in the top ten.

Alison Thewliss Glasgow

Not quite sure how to respond to this eejit, but I think I have to! Suggestions on a postcard please...

Previous letters between Mr Wilkin and I here:
8th March, 3rd March, and his original letter, 1st March