Letters: The independence debate is about having faith in ourselves

Your correspondent Brian Higgins (Letters, February 9) raises an important point in his letter: “… a Yes vote is not a vote for Nicola Sturgeon, or even a vote for the SNP, but a choice for self-determination”. This brings sharply into focus comments in the articles by Tom Gordon and Alex Neil regarding an EU referendum in Scotland. As an EU Remainer, I believe an independence referendum must only be that and cannot be taken as a de facto referendum on joining the EU. It would be completely undemocratic to do so and would disenfranchise those in Scotland who voted for Brexit – not a good start for a new country.

If Scotland votes Yes to independence what exactly happens next? Only then can the people decide what type of country they want. During quite a lengthy transition period, parties who previously opposed independence will reform with their prospectuses for the new Scotland and new parties will appear. The constitutional issue will be gone and it will be the very first time all parties will be focused only on what is good for Scotland and our continuing close relationship with the rest of the UK. Will the SNP hold together as a party given the glue of independence will have melted to reveal cracks in the structure? It cannot be assumed the existing devolved SNP Government will be solely leading negotiations with the UK. During transition, will there be a coalition government in Scotland comprised of existing political parties or will there be a Scottish general election?

The current independence debate tends to focus on the economic case because that is where there is vulnerability which is readily exploited by those who oppose Scottish independence. The truth is the economic case for independence cannot be compared to the status quo. It is fact against prediction – a prediction that can be tailored to any viewpoint. We have the resources, we have the people, have faith in yourself and others. Independence is about self-determination, doing it for yourself, proud of your country as a sovereign state taking its place at the world table, not sharing it as a minnow constantly hidden by a larger partner.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

A POSITION OF STRENGTH

SEVERAL unionist correspondents (Letters, February 9) relish whipping up fear about pensions in an independent Scotland. Three points must be made.

First, the UK Government has affirmed its legal obligation to pay pensions regardless of where one lives. The Fraser of Allander Institute confirms this: “UK Government pays state pensions to those who retire abroad (providing they have made sufficient qualifying NICs). Therefore if the UK Government pays the state pension to an individual living in France, it would seem inconsistent for it not to pay the state pension to an individual with a similar NICs record living in an independent Scotland.” It goes on to say that it is NICs, not citizenship, that determines eligibility.

Second, Scotland will be negotiating from a position of strength when dividing state assets and liabilities. Scotland won’t be liable for the £200 billion UK debt. Scotland produces more than 80 per cent of UK oil and gas, the majority of renewable electricity and has 90% of the UK’s fresh water. It would be in rUK’s interests to negotiate in good faith.

Third, post-independence, the Scottish Government will guarantee state pensions in the new Scottish currency and will have the power to increase pension payments, currently the lowest in the OECD, which it doesn’t have as a UK region.

With independence, Scots will have a democratically elected government answerable to them, not a distant foreign government they didn’t vote for that ignores them. Who should they trust more?

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh.

LIES ABOUT OUR WEALTH

THE slew of fearmongering letters about pensions in an independent Scotland ignores a basic fact.

Since 1968 Scotland has contributed more to the UK economy than England, Wales or Northern Ireland. And that was well before the North Sea oil boom. The UK Treasury and British Establishment have consistently lied to Scotland about its true wealth – although there have been some slips. In 1997 Chief Treasury Secretary William Waldegrave admitted that Scotland had paid a massive £27 billion more to the London Exchequer than it had got back since the Tories came to power in 1979.

In 1998, with New Labour in power, the House of Commons Library produced a table showing Scotland would rank seventh in the world’s wealth league as measured by GDP per head, and the UK would rank 17th.

In 2007, the Daily Mail, hardly a cheerleader for Scottish independence, detailed in “Who are the real subsidy junkies?” how much more money per head UK regions got from the Treasury than they paid in tax. Northern Island got £4,212, North-east England £3,133, Wales £2,990, North-west England £1,732, Southwest England £978, West Midlands £931, East Midlands £185. Scotland was last at £38.

In May 2008 Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling conceded that Scotland’s oil revenue had been underwriting the UK’s budget deficit for decades.

Lacking rational arguments, the Unionists simply rely on platitudinous smears.

Carter Thomson, Craighouse, Isle of Jura.

TIME INDYREF2 WAS PUT TO BED

THE cat is certainly out of the bag now with regards to pension rights should the Scottish electorate ever swallow the nationalists' propaganda and vote to leave the UK.

It is now clear beyond any doubt that in an independent Scotland there should be no automatic assumption that the state pension would be at least at the same value as it is presently as part of the Union. The old hoary chestnut quoting Sir Steve Webb in 2014 has been brought up to date and makes dire reading for the separatists, as of course pension payments are not part of some historic pot but in fact are paid from taxation received in the present.

It is actually quite amusing that an SNP spokesperson still quotes Sir Steve's 2014 view that after independence people would be entitled to the pension contributions and this is the basis of their belief today.

I recall that also in 2014 the SNP confirmed that if it lost the referendum, which of course thank goodness it did, then that would be it settled for a generation, yet rather than honouring this and concentrating on governing the country in a competent manner, it never accepted the decision of the people of Scotland and immediately embarked on the Indyref2 campaign.

No amount of spin or fake news will dig the nationalists out of this pensions hole and hopefully this will put the whole dreadful idea of another referendum being imposed on us any time soon to bed.

James Martin, Bearsden.

FALSE ACCLAIM FOR JOHNSON

SIR Tom Hunter ("Johnson 'has become the story every single week – it's time for him to go", The Herald, February 7) has an enviable reputation as a business leader and as a person with a real concern for society. It is difficult to disagree with his headline statement, indeed for anyone with a modicum of decency, it is hard to imagine a time when an amoral chancer like Boris Johnson should have gained the power he has. However, Sir Tom seems to have fallen for the spin that Mr Johnson somehow did a wonderful job in the pandemic, particularly with regard to vaccination.

Laying aside Mr Johnson's vacillation and false exceptionalism in the early stages of the pandemic, which probably resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands, his claim to have made a success of vaccination rings very hollow. All he did was take a chance with the lives of millions by its early approval and throw public money (our money) into the roll-out of the vaccine. The real heroes of this saga are the scientists and NHS staff who worked incredible hours actually to design and administer it.

They were rewarded with meaningless clapping and a derisory pay award.

Mr Johnson, in the meantime, was also throwing our money to his cronies for often-useless PPI equipment or services.

Let us have no more of this false acclamation.

Dr RM Morris, Ellon.

Read more: Why should we Scots jump off a cliff into the unknown?