Independence will only be the start in battle against poverty

Far from being a mistake to assert that "independence will tackle poverty" it is a laudable aim, but given the entrenched nature of poverty across our country and particularly so in the (previously) Labour heartland of west central Scotland, it will not be eradicated overnight.

That is the point - a Yes outcome after the referendum is only the beginning. The beginning of a new, forward-thinking and socially just country, as well as a beginning of the hoped-for eradication of poverty and other social ills that Labour have singularly failed to address when in power. And that, Ms Green, is why the Yes camp are optimistic.

There is 100 per cent certainty a Yes vote will be an opportunity to allow a new and even more vibrant Scotland to take its place on the world stage. Whilst Labour continues to talk down to Scots in this debate and when contributors continually state that they "know" independence is wrong and that they "know that the best future for Scotland is inside the UK" more of the populace will surely be asking themselves: If we are so important to Labour why do they continually tell us what we can't do?

No-one knows exactly what an independent Scotland will look like but if Ms Green can litter her Agenda article with categorical statements then I'll finish with one of my own. I know that an independent Scotland will result in Scottish governments carrying out the will of the Scottish people. That is what makes our hand very much stronger.

Dr Graeme Finnie,

Balgillo, Albert Street,

Blairgowrie.

I AM sure Kate Green will agree the present austerity cuts and welfare reforms by the Coalition Govern­ment are hitting the most vulnerable in our society, widening the gap between the haves and have-nots, rich and poor. But Ms Green was rather shallow in her article regarding Labour's proposals, should they win the 2015 General Election.

She mentioned Labour's proposals to freeze energy prices, address zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage, but perhaps she should have taken the opportunity to inform readers of Labour's commitment to continue the austerity cuts should they win power in 2015, the very austerity cuts that are plunging many into poverty.

Another pledge Ms Green should have informed readers of is Mr Miliband's commitment to remove benefits from 18-21-year-olds unless they already have the skills to get a job, again plunging many of our young people into poverty and despair. Are those Labour commit­ments giving any hope to those living day to day with poverty in Scotland? Ms Green is creating false hope that to remain in the current set-up of the UK will address what Labour have been unable to address in the past - poverty.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock,

Falkirk.

SCOTLAND has been wed to England for centuries, but as most of us know marriages sometimes fail simply because over the years people change. When couples divorce either party can make it an easy or difficult separation, some recognise the futility of continuing the relationship with the inevitable undertones of resentment and antipathy and while remembering the "good times" make the separation as painless as possible, others exact as many pounds of flesh as possible from the reluctant partner.

In the case of Scotland's threatened departure from an unhappy relationship, England - and don't let us pretend otherwise, it is south-east England driving the agenda - has opted for the pound-of-flesh route. England could have said this is a choice for Scotland but if it chooses to quit the Union we will try to make the separation as painless as possible considering the time we have spent together and the contribution Scotland has made to the joint success of the UK. However, in an attempt to sway Scottish voters they have said they want to keep the house, the friends, the joint account, the furniture and are keeping the dog.

It says much about the attitude of the Westminster regime that even in the event of the settled will of the people of Scotland being to adopt self-determination that London would make the process as painful as possible.

I wonder how those who will vote No square this obvious antipathy towards Scotland with a partner who would do their best to harm Scotland's chances of being a successful independent nation rather than opting for the more reasonable route. To me it speaks volumes about what the other partner is really like and that divorce is the best long-term solution.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

RICHARD Mowbray (Letters, July 11) condemns the decision of the Scottish Government to not extend the franchise for the referendum to those Scots such as myself living in the rUK or overseas. Whilst I would have dearly loved to have had a vote, it seems to me an understandable compromise to base the franchise on residence.

In the absence of a separate Scottish passport, who would be defined as a Scot? Everyone born in Scotland I suppose. But there are many Scots who were born elsewhere, and are now living furth of the country. Would there then have had to be a minimum number of years' residency in Scotland set to be included in the franchise? Would that have required residency from a certain age? Would that residency only be considered valid if it was as a child?

All of the above are perfectly feasible, but given that some would still be some left feeling unfairly treated and the complications involved it seems reasonable to conclude that simplicity rather than some dastardly plot to snub those of us living outside Scotland caused the Government to base the franchise on residency.

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens,

Southall, Middlesex.

TO stimulate the UK economy, the Government injected £375billion during the past two years as quantitative easing. This money was introduced via the banking system, with the idea that they would then lend to business or whoever, all for our benefit.

But where did this money actually go? This huge sum represents about £6,000 for every man woman and child in the UK, and such a sum would surely have had a noticeable effect had it actually filtered down to each of us.

What actually happened was that the bankers used it themselves, and it caused a substantial rise in the stock market, and the resumption of bankers' bonuses, because of their self-fulfilling bets on market movements, and other casino-style derivatives trading.

But our First Minister still ignores the huge opportunity that independence would provide for Scotland to control its economy, as opposed to the present situation where the London-based private banking system calls the shots.

Westminster would be doing Scotland a favour by refusing the use of sterling, thus compelling it to create and issue its own debt-free currency, but only in proportion to the assets and prosperity of the new nation. That really would be a better future for Scotland.

Malcolm Parkin,

15 Gamekeepers Road,

Kinnesswood, Kinross.

I HAVE been a citizen of the United Kingdom for more than 86 years. I regard myself as being Scottish and British. During my earlier formative years in the 1940s and 1950s, I was very aware of being a member of a nation united in its outlook and purpose. I am concerned that if Scotland becomes independent, I shall lose my long-standing, much valued, inherited citizenship and status. When I go to visit my daughter and my grandchildren in London, I shall have to travel into a foreign, albeit neighbouring, country, and when they come to visit me, they will have to do likewise. My London-born grandchildren and I shall become foreigners to one another.

I am also concerned that this may come about in a very unsatisfactory manner. If there is a poor turn-out for the referendum, the result, whichever way, will not necessarily indicate the views and wishes of the majority of the Scottish people, although it may reflect a combin­ation of apathy, indifference and indecision. On the other hand, if there is a good turn-out for the referendum and a very narrow majority, either way, there will be a large proportion of Scots who are not in favour of the result. While it is highly improbable, it is possible that a decision in favour of independence might be reached by a majority of one vote. While this would be the legitimate result of a democratic process, it would be far from satisfactory. It would indicate a sharply divided nation and this would not bode well for the future.

From their wide knowledge and experience of human beings and affairs, our Queen and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland know a thing or two about people and what they have said is very relevant and pertinent. If the referendum decides in favour of independence, I know in advance that I shall be disappointed and very sad. I shall accept it as the result of a democratic process and I shall try to be understanding, magnanimous and co-operative.

However, I am human enough to know I may well be resentful and very angry, not just about the result, but also towards those who will have been responsible for such a drastic and highly irreversible decision, when, in my view, a process of well considered, progressive devolution of power would have been a much wiser, more stable and perhaps more widely acceptable solution to the wishes of the Scottish people.

Arthur WA Main,

13/3 Eildon Terrace, Edinburgh.