We risk being cast as outcasts if we retain all the oil revenues

WHAT has been entirely absent from the debate about how much of a windfall oil will be for Scots if there is a Yes vote is the impact this will have in the rest of Britain. Their tax revenues will obviously go down if we take it all, and there will be less money available to spend on muchneeded welfare services in places like Newcastle, Manchester, the Welsh Valleys, and Northern Ireland. That is not social justice by any definition, and it will simply show the world that Scots are greedy, small-minded, and uncaring.

It will also, of course, be entirely self-defeating, as it will turn our friends and neighbours into competitors – even enemies – with disastrous effects on the thousands of Scottish businesses, large and small, which have to sell to the rest of Britain to survive. Scottish jobs will be lost in every sector and every part of the country, we will have made ourselves into social outcasts, and, when the oil runs out, we will be bankrupt. With no way of voting ourselves back into the UK, and no chance the rest of the UK would want us back, what then? M G Williamson, 37 Baberton Mains Way, Edinburgh. IAIN Macwhirter (“This ‘effing referendum’ is far from over yet, I swear”, The Herald, September 11) repeats that Scotland is visibly a wealthy country. No-one has ever disagreed, even if the measure is the flawed GDP per head and the fiscal deficit is at least £6 billion (Holyrood estimates 2013 for 2011-2012).

Scotland can manage alone, at least until the oil revenues run too low. But it loses far more than it gains by quitting the UK, not least abandoning being a very wellrespected part of this 300-year Union to be a minor player globally and in the EU, which will set stringent limits on joining.

The UK’s reach and influence are attributable in so many ways to Scotland’s contributions; both countries will lose international importance when separate. Breaking up the UK just to be more egalitarian internally may be a main motivation for the SNP, but that seems to mean not wanting to engage fully with the world at large.

Mr Macwhirter’s higher taxation and implied associated redistribution of the revenues would divert funds away from the armed forces needed for Nato membership, for example. Implicit is soaking the undefined rich to pass their earnings to the needy, but that has to be some soaking to make much difference to those on very low incomes through no fault of their own.

If the rich are not soaked, then inequality will inexorably increase as they accumulate a larger proportion of the nation’s wealth. Generalisations that a fairer, more socially just, less unequal and more prosperous Scotland can only be achieved with independence are all very well in principle, but explaining exactly how is just not on the SNP’s hymn sheet.

No and undecided voters should challenge them to do so. The SNP cut of 3 per cent in corporation tax just does not achieve much except to need replacement from other revenue sources. Joe Darby, Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall. FOR many months Better Together has warned that an independent Scotland’s economy would face a permanent risk of collapse similar to

CHANGE IN THE PIPELINE? The future of the revenues from North Sea oil is the the subject of feverish debate. that experienced by Ireland and Iceland after the 2008 banking crisis because of the huge size of the financial sector.

Now fears of that occurring have been removed following the clear indication that RBS, Lloyds and TSB would all transfer their head offices to London in the event of a Yes vote (“Union turns the heat on Yes”, The Herald, September 11). Moreover, the RBS announcement makes it clear that jobs are not at risk should this occur.

At one stroke probably the biggest fear of anyone thinking of voting for independence has been removed. A major boost to the Yes campaign? John Connelly, 8/4 145 George Street, Glasgow. ONE of the most worrying aspects of this referendum is the constant refrain that an independent Scotland would be unable to support the financial sector if it collapsed. Alastair Darling and Vince Cable have both recently re-stated this scenario.

This suggests that, given the events of 2007-8 and the meagre attempts at regulation since, they are concerned that this may happen again. If this is the case, then surely Scotland needs to distance itself from a system which not only fails to learn from the mistakes of the past but which has actively encouraged a system whereby defaulting financial institutions can be confident that, regardless of their mismanagement or incompetence, they will be bailed out by the state/taxpayer .

Far from being at the mercy of events in the financial world, an independent Scotland can ensure tighter regulation of these institutions and move away from the spiv ethos that has pervaded the actions of so many of these masters of the universe. James Mills, 29 Armour Square, Johnstone. APART from the excellent Airdrie Savings Bank, Clydebank Municipal Bank and various credit unions l wonder if there is such a creature as a Scottish bank. All the others are owned outwith Scotland.

As the British Government is the majority shareholder in RBS and a significant minority shareholder in Lloyds Group (HBOS), it is obvious that the boards of these two banks have gone public at the behest of the British Government to scare us again. However the law of unintended consequences applies, as independence provides a one-off opportunity to cleanse Scotland’s banking system of the worst excesses of the London rule while re-establishing Scottish-owned clearing banks and providing job security to bank staff in Scotland.

We need not fear anything. Following a Yes vote the negotiations between the two governments will include the division of both the Lloyds Group and RBS. Bank of Scotland will be recreated as a Scottish bank taking the Scottish business of Lloyds, while the rest of Lloyds will continue as a bank based in London. The same will happen to RBS, with the NatWest recreated as the London-based bank.

This division will happen for one very good reason: both these banks have huge investment in rUK and Scottish property through their mortgage books, the most secure part of the assets on their balance sheets.

Neither they nor the British Government can afford to block the division lest the desperation to offload the UK taxpayers’ interest in these banks be delayed indefinitely.

We should therefore welcome the British Government’s banking surrogates’ threats as the breakthrough required to restore some sense to our retail banks so that they will cease to abuse us and instead serve us. Graeme McCormick, Redhouse Cottage, Arden, by Loch Lomond. THE prospect, or threat, of a bank or so moving quarters south to London prompts me to ask whether I might receive back my (admittedly miniscule) share of the public baleout of said banks before any such departure? I will also be considering transferring my (admittedly miniscule) accounts to more steadfast banks, such as the Airdrie Savings Bank, which experienced no cash discomfiture during the much publicised financial crisis of a few years ago. Given its name, it is most unlikely to contemplate a move to the City of London, especially as it, to my knowledge, hasn’t even shifted main quarters to the nearby metropolis of Glasgow or Edinburgh.

There are some institutions which seem to forget, like some people, including many politicians, where they come from. These banks are also being allowed to forget by too many politicians the means by which they were rescued from extinction – by cash from you and me. Ian Johnstone, 84 Forman Drive, Peterhead. I WELCOME the stated intentions of several banking organisations to move some of their operations south in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum. This would give Scotland’s population the chance to move their funds from these organisations into more straightforward savings banks. If memory serves me right, one such institution, Airdrie Savings Bank, was the only British bank which managed to keep a clear balance sheet during the financial crisis of 2008.

By voting Yes, canny Scots have an opportunity to redefine the nature of banking in Scotland, and reduce our exposure to the temptations of international casino banking. In other words, we have the chance to have banks which serve the needs of their customers and the general economy rather than lining the pockets of gamblers and barrow-boys. Sam Grey, 163 Clarence Drive, Glasgow. CORPORATION tax is a tax on profits. On an operating loss of more than £8 billion for 2013, RBS did not pay much corporation tax. Barry K Wilson, 15/8 Forbes Place, Paisley. ELEMENTS of big business have joined the chorus of the scaremongers. As a No vote pretty much guarantees a continuation of a low-pay economy and a vote for Yes is a vote for a fight on a more even playing field for a high-wage economy, surely only the politically naive are really surprised by this turn of events. Bill Ramsay, 84 Albert Avenue, Glasgow.