Government should appoint a Minister for Independence

LETTERS

IN congratulating the Scottish Government on its programme for government (“Sturgeon eyes up tax rises”, The Herald, September 8) one must recall that even if Scotland has the most competent and caring government that in itself does not deliver independence, which is the central ambition of the Scottish National Party.

There were two reasons why the Yesvote did not win the 2014 referendum. The first was that the Scottish people were not prepared for independence. Most of us didn’t act as if were already independent whether as individuals, councillors, parliamentarians or government ministers. As a nation we didn’t think as if we were independent.

The second was that most Scots are Haves. We live in our own bought, if not paid-for, homes. We are relatively comfortably off and we shamelessly enjoy the many public benefits bestowed on us by the Scottish Government. Unless the UK economy is hurtling towards an economic iceberg and/or the Scottish Government can take secure control of the funding of public revenue while creating the conditions for an era of entrepreneurship then the Promised Land of independence may leave independence campaigners struggling to keep the time clock of life expectancy at bay.

Any impression that our First Minister is reluctant to promote independence as a concurrent part of her programme for government should be misguided simply because she can’t stop our Unionist opponents from challenging her Independence intentions ad infinitum. That agenda is carved in the stoney hearts of the Unionist, because it’s the only agenda they have and can’t be denied. Nor should it. But it can be gladly accepted by the Scottish Government and all in the Yes movement, as it is a rich seam from which we shall deliver an independence vote.

I do hope our First Minister appoints a Cabinet Secretary for Independence whose responsibility will be to prepare the nation for independence and ensure that all policies and legislation promoted by the Scottish Government pass the simple test: do they advance the cause of independence?

The Scottish Government already has the powers to take control over all public funding. By using our land and property as effectively replacing all current taxation as the source of our public funding we can release our entrepreneurial juices to create a property-owning democracy which no Unionist will ever achieve while we can also provide a Citizen’s Income which will lift everyone out of poverty in a sustainable way unaffected by the uncertainties of the global market. That will give the Haves the reason to vote Yes.

I’m excited that the commitment in the programme to examine land as the source of public funding will let us go one better than Moses and Martin Luther King.

Graeme McCormick, Redhouse Cottage, Arden, by Loch Lomond.

YOUR correspondent William Maley (Letters, September 8) criticises the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for, he alleges, not embracing consensual politics. Unfortunately this appears to show that his memory betrays him, as those parties were in coalition from the foundation of the Scottish Parliament until 2007.

If we are to look for the root for adversarial politics at Holyrood, we need look no further than the SNP. Having always opposed devolution, the Nationalists have betrayed its purpose. The Scottish Parliament is a UK institution set up as a means of improving the governance of Scotland within the UK. As such, devolution should be the ideal settlement for those of us who do not see and do not wish to see politics as a conflict between two increasingly shrill and risky nationalisms.

Since the SNP came to power, however, Holyrood has been abused as a weapon to fight against Scotland’s own UK government at Westminster, and as a vehicle to pursue independence, adding fuel to a fire it was designed to extinguish. Donald Dewar will have been rotating in his grave continuously for the SNP’s 10 wasted years.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

CAN I get away with suggesting that if Nicola Sturgeon reneges on her election pledge not to raise the basic rate of income tax that would be manifestly unfair? And that if you didn’t laugh at politicians’ broken promises you would cry.

R Russell Smith, 96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

NICOLA Sturgeon has blatantly attempted to woo the Greens to keep supporting her minority government by introducing draconian bans on slightly older cars coming into city centres in the very near future (“Diesel car owners face fines for driving in cities within two years”, The Herald, September 7).

Environmentally, a sound decision, in practice utter folly. The vast majority of cars on Scotland’s road will fall foul of this. In essence this means far fewer journeys will be made to city centres and hence far less business will be done by the already hard pressed shops there.

These shops, offices and businesses are the source of much of the Scottish Government’s/ local councils’ tax take already, but killing the middle-class goose that lays the golden egg is standard SNP policy.

The air quality in the city centre may well get much better simply because no one will go there. The cars and pollution will just go elsewhere. There is a genuine “refreshing” air quality solution. If the SNP is so concerned over pollution from cars, why doesn’t it give a free new baby electric car (the box is not required) to every Scot whose vehicle is more than three years old? A vote-winner for the SNP surely and in keeping with its existing policies of universal hand-outs, closing the attainment gap and fulfilling its promise to have only electric cars on Scottish roads early rather than by 2032.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Broom Road, Glasgow.

LIBERAL Democrat Alex ColeHamilton suggests that hustings could take place in prisons if prisoners were given the right to vote (“All politicians face being sent to prison … to canvass for votes”, The Herald, September 8) . The whole issue is a contentious one, which I doubt would meet with popular support.

One thing Mr Cole-Hamilton has got absolutely right, however, is the public’s perspective on politicians. With commendable humility he declares: “I think lots of people would like to see us in prison from time to time.”

Colin Hamilton,

3 Braid Hills Avenue, Edinburgh.