We are already a nation. We don't need independence

Scotland is already recognised across the world as a nation and almost all of us would describe ourselves as Scottish. We have our own legal system, our own education system, our own sports teams, sportsmen and sportswomen who perform under the Scottish flag. We are to all intent and purposes almost independent anyway.

We have tremendous representation in the UK Parliament and extremely strong devolved powers. Our national revenue comes from our share of the UK tax and we have a fair share of the split.

I genuinely can’t think of anything that would improve if we were to become independent. We have no currency, we would inherit a huge debt based on our share of UK debt. We would have little or no chance of raising more revenue without increasing personal taxation.

The biggest sleight of hand perpetrated by the SNP is that somehow independence would bring a huge improvement into our lives, despite the miserable failures after 17 years under its rule.

We don’t need independence, we need a Scottish Government that takes responsibility for its actions and stops blaming others for its abject failures. We need a Scottish Government that focuses on the critical issues like the economy, housing, employment, the health service, our horrendous drug stats.

We need a Scottish Government that does its job instead of constantly whinging and blaming the UK Government.

John Gilligan, Ayr.

READ MORE: Scotland must drop its addiction to foreign investment

READ MORE: Someone has to tell the truth, Mr Sillars, about the cost of indy

Heed the Wales warning

ALBERT Halliday (Letters, July 12) follows the Anas Sarwar line of blaming all of Scotland’s perceived ills on the SNP as if Westminster was irrelevant except for previously housing the likes of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, while Wes Streeting admitted with regards to challenges facing the NHS, “all roads lead to Westminster”.

While the Labour Party fought the General Election on bringing about “change” now we are asked to “be patient” because not only are we unlikely to see significant positive change in the next two years it is more likely to take two terms in government, 10 years, for "real change", if it happens at all. In the meantime those seeking to vilify the party that has done more to protect the poor and vulnerable over the last decade than any other party in government in the UK should ask themselves, if the SNP Scottish Government has performed so poorly, why is the situation considerably worse for the vast majority of people living under the Labour Welsh Government?

One in seven people are on an NHS waiting lists in Scotland but comparatively one in five are on an NHS waiting list in Wales (40 per cent more people waiting). While PISA scores have fallen across the UK, with test scores in two of the three test measures the worst since 2006, Wales had the worst scores in the UK in all three PISA measures and has recently decided to follow Scotland’s more holistic approach in adopting a “Curriculum for Wales”. The saying “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind and be especially careful of a snake oil salesman telling you that everything will be rosy under Labour but who refuses to tell you when.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Decisiveness wins in politics

THERE was in interesting article in the Wall Street Journal last week regarding the increasing fragmentation being witnessed within various European parliaments. Former Italian premier Matteo Renzi said that the rejection by voters of the traditional centrist parties is a consequence of people being promised change only for it not to materialise. Labour take note.

The WSJ further adds that “chronically low economic growth and strained public finances leaves governments with little room to manoeuvre”. Hence voters switching to smaller parties. The misconception in the UK media is that Labour is bucking the European trend when in reality it is following it.

Rachel Reeves is smart enough to recognise this and that voter retribution will follow if she fails to deliver. However barely four days in from taking office we had her warning that change can’t be guaranteed when growth is stalled (as it presently is). In that context she is at least being honest, unlike Jackie Baillie who on the same day chirruped that change is actually taking place and that it is "palpable". Aye, right.

Meanwhile back north we have Brian Wilson having his weekly rant about the SNP. This time it’s the party's alleged obsession with centralisation ("More powers for Edinburgh? We've had enough of that", The Herald, July 11). Bizarrely he calls for a reduction in powers devolved. Try squaring that circle, especially when his colleague Jackie Baillie (yes her again) has said that if Labour is returned to power at Holyrood one of the first things it will do is reduce the number of local health boards by centralising them. Confused?

Elsewhere the Sturgeon bashers are out in force in the shape of Jim Sillars who infers that he represents the "intellectual wing" of the independence movement ("SNP grandee brands Sturgeon ‘Stalin’s wee sister’ in party attack", The Herald, July 10). Really? Are we to conclude that calling Nicola Sturgeon “Stalin’s wee sister” represents the summit of that cohort’s intellectual thought processes? Sounds to me more like another failed male politician unable to accept a woman showing him how to succeed in persuading voters to your cause.

Diluting decision-making within your power base as Mr Sillars suggests has consequences. People don’t vote for split parties. They are also more attracted to those who are decisive. Margaret Thatcher is a case in point. She claimed to be in a Cabinet of collective responsibility. In reality she arrived at Cabinet with the decisions already made and not up for discussion. Nevertheless this blatantly dictatorial approach won her elections whilst Labour’s obsession with collegiate structures and trade union representation left it in the political wilderness. It’s called realpolitik.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.

Jim Sillars (Image: Newsquest)

We need to act responsibly

LEAH Gunn Barrett's excellent letter on the Attlee government (July 10) contained many home truths and in fact, pointed one way forward. However, there is no information as to how the NHS was funded.

When I started as an apprentice architect in 1963 my first wage was £350 per annum and I paid the basic rate of income tax which was 33.3 per cent, the top rate being 91%. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining how things could be funded. I certainly don't remember moaning about it as I didn't know anything else.

I was born in slum conditions but by the time I was eight we had moved to council housing in a brand new scheme in Paisley. I had also benefited from the NHS, having spent a year in Philipshill hospital, East Kilbride. Family was the priority for my parents as it became for my late wife and I and we never bought anything we could not afford.

Anas Sarwar is urging the new PM to scrap the two-child cap but again that has to be funded, but by whom? This is an extremely emotive subject but as we look for change we need to be more responsible for ourselves and respectful and loving to the children we can afford.

Ian Ramsden, Paisley.

The case for first past the post

ALAN Faulds ("Poll results confirmed FPTP is an undemocratic farce", The Herald, July 12) makes an almost compelling case for some form of proportional representation to be used for Westminster General Elections. If such a system had been in use on July 4, Nigel Farage and his Reform Party would have achieved 91 seats in Parliament from 14.3% of the vote.

Perhaps first past the post is preferable as it keeps extremist, populist cults from achieving power.

James Quinn, Lanark.

Let them travel for free
I WOULD hope Ian Balloch (Letters, July 12) is in the absolute minority in Scotland.
He condemns the Scottish Government for offering asylum seekers free bus travel. He obviously fails to understand why people facing persecution, violence or war in their own country seek safety elsewhere.
He describes the pilot travel scheme as a "freebie".
Many asylum seekers are eventually granted UK visas, and they fill the job vacancies Scotland desperately needs.
The Home Office's inefficient immigration process system, which can take years, is what costs the taxpayer the most money.
During this time asylum seekers aren't allowed to work, although they would love to.
They are given £49.18 a week for "food, toiletries, clothes and travel" while being housed, yes, at taxpayers' expense, but to the benefit of private landlords or hotel owners, in often pretty dire accommodation.
It seems pretty obvious to me they can't afford bus fares from places like Easterhouse into the city. Let them travel free and engage us with their friendship and culture.
Andy Stenton, Glasgow.