Indy debate will continue

Dear Editor,

Regarding Mr Allan’s letter (No second referendum, January 25).

I would like to point out the SNP’s 2016 election manifesto which states: “The Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is a “significant and material” change in circumstances, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.”

The Scottish Government have a mandate to carry out their manifesto promises, thus respecting the will of the people. Although Better Together won Indyref1, it was a campaign based on untruths. For example, “The only way to stay in the EU is to vote No”.

“Scotland should lead, not leave the UK,” according to Gordon Brown and Johann Lamont.

The day after Indyref1, David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws, thus ensuring no MP from a Scottish constituency could ever become Prime Minister of the UK.

Mr Brown warned that Indy came with a pensions timebomb. The UK Government backed that claim but now we see pension age increases.

UK Government policy since Indyref1 means that mid-to-high earners are better off through their pensions but low earners bear the cost of the reforms.

A Scot earning around £15,000per annum with a working life of 30 years could see a pension drop of £1800pa.

We were told that we can’t have a sovereign oil fund as it wasn’t viable but then the UK Government announced the north-east of England fracking fund to ensure that the communities benefit from their oil wealth.

We were told that we could not use the pound after Indy; they claimed that a currency union was unworkable.

But in June 2016, on STV, Sir Mervyn King, who ran the Bank of England, said “it was totally feasible”. This list is not exhaustive... there’s more!

Charles Andrew The Murray