Independence would mean saying goodbye to devo freebies
IT has been asked many times why, if Scottish independence is such fantastic idea, its proponents have to tell so many untruths to justify it. Leah Gunn Barrett (Letters, March 3) states that “the Scottish Government has ... no borrowing powers”. I would refer Ms Gunn Barrett and your readers to the Scottish Government’s own website which, for example, sets those powers out and details how much may be and has been borrowed in its reports on the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016.
Furthermore, Ms Gunn Barrett’s letter on the successes of devolution fails to take into account that these would not have been possible without the support of the rest of the United Kingdom.
In fact, without the revenues redistributed from the wealthy regions of London and the south-east of England, the Holyrood devolved administration would not have been able to afford any of the goodies she lists, from free elderly care right down to baby boxes.
This is a further truth which is constantly avoided by nationalists – that independence would mean an abrupt end to all the “free” stuff that Scotland enjoys under devolution.
Peter A Russell, Glasgow.
If Holyrood didn’t exist ...
CLARK Cross (Letters, March 2) suggests that Scottish taxpayers may no longer want devolution and complains about the cost. Perhaps he has forgotten about the hundreds of thousands of the elderly who now benefit from free personal care. Or the many thousands of walkers who enjoy the right to roam responsibly through our wonderful countryside without being banned by the owners of huge estates. Or the freedom to park without charges in an NHS car park when taking an ill person to hospital. Or the abolition of prescription charges, bridge tolls and university tuition fees, to name just a few of the benefits that devolution has brought us.
He complains about the huge rise in cost of the Scottish Parliament building since the initial estimate of £40 million. Doesn’t he remember that this estimate was produced by the UK Government with the sole aim of keeping the estimate under the £44m it was going to cost to convert the former Royal High School building in Carlton Hill?
That Donald Dewar was frightened that a parliament high on a hill would fan the flames of independence? That the Holyrood building was commissioned before a Scottish Parliament was even elected? That the original plan didn’t even include offices for its members? Everyone is aware that when commissioning a new building it is vital to involve those who will actually be using it, but the UK Government totally ignored this sensible principle.
This was not the fault of devolution, but of those planning it. Let’s look at what would have happened if there were no
Scottish Parliament. Scotland would be governed by three Westminster-based ministers. They would be appointed by Boris Johnson and represent a political party rejected over many years by the Scottish electorate.
They would come to Scotland for only a tiny proportion of each week as they would have to debate and vote at Westminster. Yes, we would save the money spent on MSP salaries and the like, but is this really what the Scottish people want? I doubt it. Ian Mckee, Edinburgh.
IAN W Thomson (Letters, March 3) is now displaying clear symptoms of the anti-snp virus which afflicts many who hanker after the good old days when old Labour ruled the roost in Scotland. He describes our Scottish nation as an aberration, adding deep insult to injury by likening us to supporters of Donald Trump.
He bases this on his assumption that Scots who vote SNP do so out of obsessive admiration for Nicola Sturgeon and her administrative skills. The truth is that support for the SNP stems from the fact that it is the main vehicle displaying an independent Scotland on its destination screen; artillery directed at individual politicians or the competence or otherwise of our current devolved administration does little to deflect independence supporters from their wish to be part of a nation which chooses its own democratic path.
Why Mr Thomson and his ilk retain such devotion to a union created to get the feudal barons who ruled 18th-century Scotland out of a mess of their own creation defies explanation.
Willie Maclean, Milngavie.
Shame of the power grab
THE UK Government plans to bypass the Scottish Government and award funding directly to local authorities (“Infrastructure investment plan for Scotland sparks SNP ‘power grab’ claims”, The Herald, February 25). And so the well-used strategy of divideand-rule comes into play.
The decision on which authorities will receive funding is reserved to the UK Government, which will no doubt look carefully at voting patterns.
Scottish towns will thus be set against each other as they compete for the favours of a Tory Government which has been repeatedly rejected in Scotland.
Shame on Brian Wilson, once a Labour politician, that he prefers decisions about Scotland to be taken by London Tories rather than by a Government accountable to the people of Scotland (“EU money gives Scotland a chance to grab powers from Edinburgh”, The Herald, March 3).
Mary Mccabe, Glasgow.
Ross is boosting SNP
THE rantings of Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross smack of the two-faced hypocrisy we are used to from the Tories.
He has called for our First Minister to resign over allegations of a breach of the ministerial code (“First Minister faces calls to resign ahead of testimony”, The Herald, March 3). She may very well have made some errors of judgment, the degree and nature of which will transpire over the coming weeks. However, Nicola Sturgeon is positively saintly compared to the likes of Boris Johnson, Priti Patel, Robert Jenkrick and Matt Hancock, who all have very clearly recorded significant breaches of ministerial code.
Do you think for a single minute any of these top-rank UK Tories will resign?
Alex Salmond’s recent comments resulted in the support for Scottish independence taking a downward hit. Helpful contributions from the likes of Mr Ross will quickly see the polls positively restored; disdain of the Tories is one thing the vast majority of Scots will always unite on. The scaremongers can keep on the warpath. Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity with the Scottish public will remain strong.
Paul Morrison,
Glasgow.
Pursuit of truth being hampered
THE Salmond inquiry sessions with Nicola Sturgeon as witness have demonstrated beyond doubt the obstacles that the committee has had to try to negotiate. Repeatedly, the peerless Jackie Baillie has alerted Ms Sturgeon to the fact that getting to the truth of the matter has been hampered by the complete lack of co-operation by the Scottish Government in providing relevant documents which exist but have been withheld.
At the start of these proceedings, many months ago, Ms Sturgeon promised the committee the complete co-operation of her Government. Why has this been denied?
Jill Stephenson,
Edinburgh.
THE SNP’S wagons have been circled round their beleaguered leader. It is a sobering thought to recall the relatively wildly insignificant reasons why Henry Mcleish was forced under SNP pressure to give up the office of First Minister. He left with dignity intact. The heavily-pregnant Wendy Alexander was hounded out of her job also for an “offence’’ that was not within a million miles of the allegations and revelations now flooding Holyrood.
There is an ironic twist in that the two main protagonists now slugging it out at Holyrood led the campaigns to bring down both. Alexander Mckay,
Edinburgh.
Scotrail wouldn’t collect fare
I WAS baffled by the claim Scotrail made that because there are fewer staff on trains, fare-dodging has escalated (“Scotrail warns fare dodgers”, The Herald, March 2)
On the Kyle line there are always staff due to some stations being request stops and some having short platforms which necessitate staff unlocking only one door for boarding and alighting.
When I boarded at an unmanned station some months back the staff member approached me to ask where I was getting off. My stop necessitated him to unlock the door so he informed me which door to go to. As he hurried away I showed him my Railcard but he wasn’t interested and said he couldn’t collect the fare. Later, as he unlocked the door, I asked why he couldn’t. His reply was that Scotrail wanted to prevent any asymptomatic staff spreading the virus, so by not collecting fares they were minimising risk. This was very responsible of Scotrail, but there were staff on the train who conversed and had contact with me twice and could therefore have theoretically passed on the virus anyway but they still could not collect the fare.
There was no prior notice of this on its app or I would have been encouraged to make pre-payment of the fare online when I checked the time of the journey.