Readers' Letters Extra

A modest rise in global interest rates (which is likely due to the cyclical nature of these things) would put the UK Government in the position where the servicing of the debt would become not just difficult, but impossible in the longer term.

In such a case, to avoid being in default, the last possible source of revenue would be a raid on yours and my savings.

This is not as far-fetched as it sounds; the magazine, Money Matters quite recently, predicted this scenario.

A Yes vote at least gives us the chance of not being part of a financially bankrupt Britain.

Jack Robertson,

3 Ash Terrace,

Stirling.

OVER the last 30 years, the UK has engaged in a massive equity release programme. This ground-breaking initiative included the privatisation of UK infrastructure (electricity, gas, and water) and nationalised industries (Amersham Int, BAe, Britoil, BP, British Steel, British Rail, Post Office, and so on) together with several research organisations. Governments have connived at the take-over of industrial organisations including most of the UK car industry, UK electronics industries (English Electric, Marconi, Racal, Plessey), and others more recently such as Boots, Cadburys, JLR, and high tech Wolfson etc. Commercial interests in hotels, major stores, etc have gone to foreign bidders. The government continues to encourage the sale of land to foreign interests (think central London property) and council houses, to be rented back at up to five times the former council rent. No wonder the housing benefit bill is escalating.

Nearly all of these assets were sold off at a very large discount to their true worth, after being valued by those who grab the majority of shares/assets on privatisation. Nice profit if you belong to the City establishment!

Many of these former national assets have now been re-sold in part or whole to mega-wealthy individuals, sovereign wealth funds and private equity interests, over which we, as a nation, have little control. In some instances these privatised assets have ended up bizarrely in the hands of other national governments (i.e. re-nationalised)

Add to this list the wealth created by North Sea oil and ask where did all the money go? Is this policy of legitimized looting an example of Britishness?

John R Norbury,

78/1 Queen Street,

Edinburgh.

LET'S resist the temptation to think that we are voting primarily about the economy. Come independence, the economy will of course have to be attended to, as will so much else. But the key questions surely are; can we imagine a different, a fairer, a more just, a more equal and a more inclusive sort of society for Scotland, and do we have the confidence in ourselves to work together to make it happen? I hope and pray that the answer to both these questions will be a resounding YES.

(Rev Dr. ) John Harvey.

501 Shields Road,

Glasgow.

I'M guessing that for folk on both sides of the debate it will appear self-evident that a strong economy is a prerequisite for the creation of prosperity. Better Together campaigners go much further though with their assertion that a strong economy needs to be present in order for an equal nation to be created. During these days when apparently we're "all in it together" it was perhaps understandable to many for pensioners to get just a small increase in their state pensions from April this year, namely £2.95 per week. That was however, it is important to underline, a decision by our Westminster MPs, the self-same MPs who will soon see a weekly increase in their salary of just under £135. Shamefully the self-same thing happened just over a decade ago, this at a time when the UK Treasury's coffers were in relatively good health thanks to a strong economy. Whilst our older folk saw their state pensions rise by a measly £39 per year, MPs awarded themselves a whopping £2,000.

The sad fact of the matter is that when it comes to the creation of an equal nation Westminster governments cannot be relied upon to deliver, even when GDP is in the ascendant. Alistair Darling effectively admitted as much during Holyrood's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committe in May this year when he was asked: "Would 55 years of Labour Governments have reduced poverty more than it has been reduced in the past 55 years?" His depressing answer was: "It is impossible to say . . . . I hope that it would be the objective of every Labour yovernment to reduce poverty." Scottish governments have delivered, rain or shine, social justice in various forms. Free personal care, free prescriptions, free travel and free home insulation are just some headline examples of that, standing in stark contrast to the austerity budgets-driven policies emanating from Westminster. Why oh why then does the Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem troika still insist that we are better together?

Korstiaan Allan,

7 Whitingford,

Edinburgh.

Regarding Mr Michael Boulton-Jones "nightmare" of a letter (The Herald, 15 September 2014) in which he raises a vision of Scotland following a Yes vote.

I too had a dream (or did it actually happen?)

Did Gordon Brown sell off a large proportion of the UK gold reserves at the bottom of the gold market? Did Tony Blair take us into an illegal war in Iraq? Did the Labour Partu under the leadership of Gordon Brown) ditch his oft quoted friend Prudence, thus allowing uncontrolled banking practices and the destruction of the UK economy? Did the Conservative Party give the weakest and poorest members of our society a kicking (while they were already down) during the current Labour - induced economic crisis? Did Margaret Thatcher use Scotland to implement her poll tax? Did our money, in the form of expenses claims, vanish via the underhand practices of our esteemed Members of Pparliament? Did Nick Clegg betray the electorate by failing to abide with his stated promise on tuition fees?

Rather than raising the 300-year-old Darien Scheme I suggest Mr Boulton-Jones looks at recent history of ineptitude displayed by the Westminster elite in more recent times.

We can all dream.

John S Milligan,

86 Irvine Road,

Kilmarnock.

PUTTINg aside the vagueness of the vow of supposedly extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament from the Unionist parties, the messengers in the form of Mr Clegg, Mr Cameron and Mr Milliband do not fill one with great confidence to deliver any of these.

As an example, in the run-up to the 2010 General Election Mr Clegg pledged that there would be no increase in tuition fees for English students, before voting to increase tuition fees. Mr Cameron pledged a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, before neatly sidelining that.

What these three gentlemen also fail to mention is that any new powers would have to be ratified by House of Commons, where there is substantial Tory backbench opposition to these, as well as the House of Lords. The outcome of this cannot therefore be "guaranteed."

Voters need to seriously consider what these new powers would be, which given what the Unionist parties have said to date, are incredibly weak, as well as whether they will ever even see the light of day.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

THE relentless negativity of the No campaign in the referendum debate, especially during the last two weeks, has been so extreme that I confidently expect them to claim anytime now that the Scots would be incapable of tying their own shoelaces after independence.

Fortuitously, I recently purchased a nice, comfy pair of slip-on shoes, and will wear them with pride as I vote Yes on polling day.

Brendan Hamill,

49 Argyll Road,

Kinross.

I AM currently overseas and being overseas at the time of the Labour Government referendum on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament I had no vote. I therefore shall not vote on the current independence referendum as I am again overseas at the point of this plebiscite.

Following the campaign from this overseas vantage point I can make a few comments as a non- voter. Firstly, I would have thought that the No campaign would have won on a 60 per cent to 40 per cent outcome.

Unfortunately, the London elite was complacent despite reports that Gordon Brown had warned of a closer outcome than my prediction. I do not think Gordon Brown was right and I was wrong.

What has happened is that the London-centric political class is out of touch with events beyond the Home Counties and as such was complacent regarding the outcome. Having visited Scotland during the summer I noted a sea change toward the Yescampaign's position, even amongst my valued and intelligent English friends who have resided in Scotland for many years.

Now that the opinion polls are effectively 50-50 the No campaign's negative campaigning has essentially backfired; not least with the North Sea oil predictions. Yes, Sir Ian Wood's estimates for the Treasury regarding the east of Aberdeen oil fields is undoubtedly correct. What has been ignored is that the west of Shetland field is more lucrative than thought and may be valued at double the total value of the oilfields east of Aberdeen.

Mr Salmond's mistake has not been to exploit this prised fact and use the potential to create a Scottish Reserve Bank and a Scottish pound backed by oil. Where is the economic uncertainty given Isis control of Iraq oil fields where BP still operates? Shall BP exit Scotland when they pay £240,000 for six months' salary to retain engineers in Iraq?

As an outsider disenfranchised by Tony Blair, perhaps your newspaper's referendum stance is appropriate to the current mood of Scotland and that of the Scottish electorate. As Alistair Darling correctly stated, if the No campaign does not win with a sizabl majority; the issue shall not be settled.

The simple point is that the electorate should not trust any politician, but vote with their gut!

Gary Smith,

The Coach House,

Sorn Estate, Mauchline.

IN the event of a marginal win for the Yes campaign, can it really be true that 96 per cent of the British people are expected to abide by the wishes of only four per cent? Scotland signed up to an "indissoluble union", not a federation. Let us say: "No, it is my country as much as yours."

Christopher WJ Cottam,

5 Station Road, Barnack, Stamford, Lincolnshire.

I'LL bet David Cameron is wishing he had remembered Rumpole's First Rule: 'Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.'

Michael Bruce,

50 Millbrix Avenue, Glasgow.

NOW the arguments on both sides have been aired and make your mind up time is imminent. Necessary change isn't won solely through the ballot box. It's the hard work that follows immediately after the result. I think Scotland is up to the task and that's why I'll be voting Yes.

Bruce Thomson

72 Waverley Park,

Kirkintillloch.

SO a Yes win in the referendum is a "victory for Scotland"? Alex Salmond said so on Reporting Scotland, so I suppose it must be true.

He has lost an undecided voter.

Willie Towers,

10 Victoria Road, Alford.

DUNCAN McFarlane (Letters, September 11) mentions raising income tax as political suicide for any politician. Every lobby group invariably claims a need for further resources to further their aims. That means money, usually from a government.

Wendell Holmes, a former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, left his estate to the US Treasury as "taxes are the price we pay for civilisation". As Mr McFarlane suggests no politician is willing to raise or even mention income tax, yet everybody wants to live in a civilised society - which nobody now seems willing to pay for. Did Mrs Thatcher win ?

Arnold Bell,

5 Monmouth Avenue, Glasgow.

DAVID Cameron, Alistair Darling and friends all agree that Scotland could become a successful independent country. They also give us dire warnings of what will go wrong if we choose independence. Both statements can't be true. Why trust anything they say?

David Bethune,

5 Marion Crescent,

Selkirk.

AS the UK seems hellbent on putting all its fragile golden eggs in one vulnerable basket, namely London, it strikes me that all it would take is one large terrorist attack, viral outbreak or natural disaster for its biggest egg, the financial sector, to relocate elsewhere - that is abroad. Such an unfortunate event would inevitably lead to financial and social meltdown in England so surely the only responsible thing for Scotland and other provinces to do is to limit our exposure to this very realistic risk as best we can. London is a house of cards that will fall over one day, it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't land on us when it goes.

James Young,

90 Mitchell Street,

Glasgow,

ALASTAIR Darling is always telling us that if we vote for independence that will be it. There will be no changing our minds, no going back. Can anyone out there name one country which, having achieved independence, ever wanted to go back? Perhaps Better Together could publish a list?

Caroline Macmillan,

41 Bay Road, Wormit, Newport-on-Tay.

BEFORE you vote on Thursday give this a thought: if Scotland were an independent country, would you vote in a referendum to join the UK?

A Weir,

Larach Beag, 223 Milngavie Road, Bearsden.

THE politicians huff and puff about the marvellous Union whilst the businessmen predict gloom and doom for the Scottish economy. As an Englishman, I have closely followed this debate since the SNP first raised it and have come to the following conclusions:

1. Not one person truly knows what will happen after the vote, no matter how it goes. It is all guesswork and about protecting vested interests.

2. Yes or No, the politicians will still do a deal and tell the Scots just how well they have done.

3. Despite the bribes offered to you, Westminster will, ultimately, still be in charge.

I believe the simple fact is that if you want the Scottish people to be ruled by Scots for the benefit of Scotland, you must vote Yes.

If Scotland is as good as many Scots have told me, have the courage to stand up and fight for it instead of taking what Westminster deigns to give you. Remember too, whatever can be given can also be taken away.

T J Spinks,

23 Byefield Grove, East Ayton, Scarborough.

IFScotland is brave enough to vote Yes in the face of the barrage of threats, warnings and insults of the last two weeks, a feeling of freedom will run around the world; were there any miners left, they would quit work and march proudly through their towns and villages as they did when the Tsar was overthrown.

It really is that important to us all.

Richard Frost, 11 Catherine Street, Whitehaven.

YES campaigners believe they have a monopoly in caring for the poorest people in Scotland. As a No campaigner I fear that the risks of Independence would fall disproportionately on the poorest through higher food and utility costs which make up a large percentage of a poorer households income. The Yes campaign dismiss these risks as "Project Fear", but if you have to survive on £100 per week they would soon become "Project Reality".

Neil Sinclair,

Flat 2f2,

30 Clarence Street,

Edinburgh.

AFTER depriving disabled people of a badly needed spare bedroom, are the same Westminster politicians likely to be resolute custodians of the National Health Service? Disablement is chronic ill health. It is a condition, in all its various degrees and types, that requires stable organised care. The so-called welfare reforms from Westminster have driven many disabled people to states of anxiety, extreme stress, and in many instances suicide. I signed a petition recently concerning a diabetic man in his late 50s who died because he missed a Work Programme appointment at the Job Centre and lost a month's worth of his £71 a week payments. He died because his electricity had been cut off and he couldn't keep his insulin chilled in the fridge. I have personal knowledge of people who have to prepare their own meals in kitchens not adapted for their disability. Also the spare bedroom benefit denied disabled people even though there is a total absence of one-bedroom alternative homes for them to shift into.

Only the intervention of the present Scottish Government, in the form of cash refunding, has protected the disabled from the harsh consequences of this appropriately termed bedroom tax.

Ian Johnstone,

84 Forman Drive,

Peterhead.

AT the BT rally in Glasgow Gordon Brown claimed that we should be proud of co-operating with England and all the new powers coming to Scotland if we vote "No" tomorrow.

The English, Welsh and Northern Irish are not being asked how they feel about this generous commitment on behalf of all Westminster Parties.

Will they accept these new powers for Scotland and the special relationship between Holyrood and Westminster ?

He is fond of referring to the leadership of the late John Smith and bringing the sacrifices of those who lost their lives in our shared forces into the debate. I recall another John Smith, my uncle, who's body was never found after he died in the North Atlantic when SS Laurentic was sunk in WWI carrying forty five tons of gold to the US to pay for arms and equipment. My family has always believed that the lives of those who were sacrificed that night was a price not worth paying sending gold to an ally who didn't have enough faith in the UK's ability to win the war and pay later.

Maggie Jamieson,

37 Echline Place,South Queensferry,

West Lothian.

IN Monday's opinion column, David Torrance argued the Yes campaign has successfully framed the referendum debate in such a way as to undermine all unionist counter-claims. Unfortunately for Mr Torrance, he is guilty of the same self-confirming bias he eloquently identifies among supporters of independence: pointing to the inherent reasonableness of Unionist claims as evidence of nationalist "framing" is, as a form of argument, no different from the Yes camp dismissing the UK Government's currency position on the basis of an orchestrated London "conspiracy". Both narratives lay claim to an objective - and probably imaginary - middle-ground which their opponent has warped and distorted. Instead of viewing the whole debate a nationalist stitch-up, as Mr Torrance suggests, voters should approach both sides with a healthy and equal skepticism.

A Dougall,

23 Roseneath Place,

Edinburgh .

In the final run-up to September 18th we have once again seen the supporters of "Better Together" revealed in their true colours - with yet more "day trips"' to Scotland from an increasingly desperate Westminster elite - Cameron, Clegg, Milliband and Farage, and more baseless scaremongering from banks, businesses and the retail sector - all of the them totally negative, untrue and effectively countermanded, but intentionally designed to create a climate of fear and uncertainty.

Thisd relentless negativity will assuredly prove counterproductive, and will serve only to strengthen the already compelling case made by the 'Yes' campaign. We will not be cowed by this. On the contrary, we will look forward with enthusiasm to embracing the positive future and belief in ourselves that only a 'Yes' vote can bring. The momentum is with us, and we are on our way!

The potential benefits are huge. Never more will we Scots be dictated to by Westminster politicians with their patronising, demeaning and condescending attitudes, seeking to impose their unwelcome policies upon us. Instead, we will take responsibility for our own affairs, as we well know we can do, embracing a resilient and positive future, and our economy will thrive accordingly. Trident missiles will go forever from our shores, releasing substantial sums to be spent in altogether more constructive ways for the benefit of the Scottish people, while setting an inspiring example of peace and hope to the world at large. We will remain in the European Union, having a significant and influential voice within it. But most of all we will have vision and optimism, reflecting the values of compassion, social justice, fairness and equality which we Scots have long held dear.

This week we stand on the very brink of making history by rediscovering ourselves as the proud, dignified and independent Scottish nation that we all know we can be. No other country that has been offered the opportunity of independence has ever failed to embrace it, and no country that has gained independence has ever wanted to return to the status quo. Why should Scotland be any different? Over the past few weeks, the Scottish people have been inspired, energised and invigorated as never before. This is a unique moment, and there is only one way to ensure a positive future for Scotland - to take our affairs wholly into our own hands, by voting 'Yes' on Thursday.

Alan Johnson,

Davaar, 19 Charles Street, Larg.

One feature of the referendum campaign being hyped up in the last few days is the emphasis on solidarity with our friends down South - that a vote for Yes means we are letting our fellow UK citizens down. This, along with the increased language of '"separation" and "foreigners" is making for an uncomfortable cocktail.

The solidarity argument is particularly hard to stomach. I was born and grew up in Merseyside, educated in London and have lived abroad for much of my adult life. My immediate family still live in Merseyside and South Yorkshire. All want a Yes vote. The idea that Scotland should draw back from the chance to determine its future so as to prop up a failing State and a failed neoliberal project is offensive. My family and friends view this as Scotland taking control over its own decisions and aspiring towards a more progressive and fairer society. It inspires them and gives them hope that it will invigorate the debate down South. Allied to the clever alliterative soundbites of solidarity from Linwood to Liverpool, from Raith to Rotherham etc is a reliance on the language of 'separation' and 'foreigners'. It is divisive and misses what this campaign is really about - an exciting and profound movement of change.

Last night chapping doors in West Lothian, I was greeted by a woman who saw my Yes badge and said "Sorry. I'm English". When I replied "So am I" she opened the door. She was upset, feeling that a Yes vote would mean rejecting her family, but queried whether she should be voting at all as she didn't feel as if she belonged anywhere. The idea of 'erecting borders' - whether psychological or physical as Mr Miliband would have us believe, had made her anxious. Such comments are unhelpful - they frighten and exclude people and foster anti English sentiment. They stifle debate and polarise arguments. I suggested that independence for Scotland would not affect my relationship with family or friends and they wouldn't become foreigners overnight. It will still take me 4 hours to visit my nieces in Rotherham by train, I will still visit my Mum in St Helens and Scotland will still be in Britain. I have been welcomed into Yes West Lothian with all my multiple identities - English, Green and a woman and recognised as having as much a stake in this as they have. A cross in a box won't change who I am. For me this is about whether the country I now live in can determine its own future and aspire to something better. It is as simple as that.

Maire McCormack,

2 Market Lane,

Linlithgow.

ALEXSalmond often quotes how well Norway has done as the result of saving the income from its oil reserves but he has not made any comparison with the cost of living between the UK and Norway.

One small example come from a visit there last week when in Kristiansand where the price of 4 coffees and 4 scones with butter cost the equivalent of £28+. Window shopping of the high street stores was the best we could do because of the high prices of goods which all seemed identical to products available here at much lower cost. Is that what we can expect if there is a Yes vote?#

John M Wilson,

Police House,

Main Street,

Houston.

ONER enduring claim from the 'Yes' side has been that in the event of independence, a Scottish Government would be much more responsive to the wishes and persuasion of the Scottish people, than is the Westminster Government.

Offering substantial support to this claim is the outcome of the recent controversy over the proposal to blow up several blocks of flats as part of the opening ceremony for the Commonwealth Games. In the event, pressure form vast swathes of the populace via petitions and comment, succeeded in convincing the authorities in Glasgow to abandon the plan.

The opening ceremony, without the mass demolition, then went ahead to almost universal acclaim, and got the Games off to a tremendous start.

Consider though, if the decision making process had been in Westminster instead of in Glasgow, would the campaign have had a similar effect? Bluntly, it is highly unlikely. We would have endured the unedifying sight of people's' homes being blasted into oblivion in the name of spectacle.

The claim that we will be more powerful when we can see the "whites of our politicians'" eyes' is hard to reject, and when we cast our votes today, it would be as well to dwell on this before marking any voting slip.

Grant Young.

49, Doonvale Drive,

Ayr.