Scotland needs a centre-right party in the European mould

Ian W Thomson (Letters, March 18) is on the right track when he argues that the Conservatives need to find a Scottish identity but in reality the solution is far simpler - all they need to do is abandon English exceptional­ism. There is nothing uniquely peculiar about the Scottish electorate that precludes the acceptance of Centre-right ideas; what is uniquely peculiar is the English Conservative Party, of which Ruth Davidson leads the Scottish franchise.

Without exception every centre-right party in Europe understands that the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour is a good thing. All things being equal, free markets are good - so being part of the largest free market in the history of mankind is wonderful. Only south of the Border is this considered a curse. Conservatives generally believe government works better the closer it is to the people, rather than being the preserve of remote mono­liths that lack direct accountability. David Cameron and the other Westminster Conservatives constantly make this critique of Brussels and Strasbourg government, but never seem to consider that the same case could be made for London. Centre-right parties are generally the parties of the aspirational middle and working classes, promoting lower taxes and getting on in life. Yet the Westminster Conservatives think it's a great idea to place a £27,000 tax on middle-class educational achieve­ment and in so doing stab at the heart of conventional social meritocracy.

I will be voting Yes in September, not despite being on the right but rather because I'm on the right. I believe (like the overwhelming majority of European conservatives) that policies should be built around societies and not vice-versa. Moreover, a terminal split with Westminster politics will perhaps finally permit an indigenous and conventional European conserva­tism to take root again in Scotland.

Chris McLaughlin,

71b Braidpark Drive,

Giffnock.

The only successes I can see so far for the Unionist campaign against independence have been to persuade an uninformed proportion of the Scottish electorate that Scotland is a poor country, the oil is running out and it is dropping in value.

As all three of these propositions are demonstrably untrue it reflects very badly on those who are spreading them. As well as demon­strating a degree of desperation in the Better Together ranks it also suggests a serious miscalculation. A fairly large and perfectly intelligent section of the Scottish population have until recently not been hugely engaged in the constitutional issue. This is normal. Day-to-day living engages most people most of the time. As the constitutional choice becomes more imminent this changes. As interest grows and more information is sought it is becoming more evident that there can be no greater encouragement to voting for one side than to strongly suspect that you have been lied to by the other.

The facts are relatively simple. Scotland is the fourteenth richest country in the world and about the eighth richest in Europe. The world's most respected rating agency, Standard and Poor, has stated that the Scottish economy, even without oil, would have the highest rating and is in a better position than the UK's.

There has been record investment in the North Sea over the last two years and no informed opinion suggest there is anything less than 50 years of valuable oil left in the present fields. Other experts, including Sir Ian Wood, suggest there is many more years than that and it appears likely that new areas like the Clyde basin will come on stream.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reckons oil will increase in value up to about $250 per barrel. The British Ministry of Defence suggests it may reach $400 per barrel by 2040.

So can we please have a constitutional debate in which the Better Together campaign lays aside its dishonest scaremongering and tries to persuade us that remaining in the UK offers us a more progres­sive future than independence does?

Dave McEwan Hill,

1 Tom Nan Ragh,

Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.

IN his Agenda article ("Working families would pay price of obsession with independence" , The Herald, March 17) Jim Murphy claims that "with independence it is clear that there would be large increases in the cost of living for hard-working Scottish families", yet he fails to provide specific evidence of this.

Mr Murphy should consider what interest rate he is charged on his mortgage. He might then compare it with the mortgage interest rates being quoted in a small independent country which is recovering from the effects of the financial crash, Ireland, where the rates are if anything lower than in the UK.

A check of the website of a major UK supermarket which operates in the UK and Ireland reveals that the cost of a clutch of typical household items is the same.

So my question to Mr Murphy is quite simply: on what basis does he make his claim when information is in the public domain which contradicts what he says?

Graeme McCormick,

Redhouse Cottage,

Arden, by Loch Lomond.

ANDREW Marr is a fine interviewer, but his recent comments highlight the great care that must be taken by those involved in broadcasting on the Scottish independence referendum ("SNP claim Marr show interview breaches BBC rules", The Herald, March 17).

In his TV interview with Alex Salmond he made it clear that he personally felt that it would be "quite hard" for an independent Scotland to join the EU, following the comments made by European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso. This followed on from comments he made at the Edinburgh International Book Festival in August last year when he stated that there was an "entrenched anti-Englishness" in the SNP.

In addition to this a report by a group of researchers at the University of the West of Scotland found that on the BBC and ITV anti-independence arguments got more airtime than pro-independence ones and that "bad news" about independence preceded pro-independence responses. Ultimately it concluded that TV coverage on this matter had not been fair or balanced.

As we enter the final six months in the run-up to the referendum itself broadcasters will be under increasing pressure and have greater responsibility to ensure that both sides get a fair hearing.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

FOR more than 20 years the BBC in Scotland was led by Blair Jenkins and its flagship GMS programme by Derek Bateman - both now high-profile independence campaigners. I felt throughout this time that the BBC was biased in favour of the SNP and that these two in particular were part of that. However, I have friends who think the exact opposite, and I am therefore prepared to say that perhaps if the BBC is annoying all sides then it must be doing something right.

The faux outrage from the First Minister over being asked a difficult question by Andrew Marr is too much to take when he gets treated with kid gloves by Radio Scotland.

Thomas McCafferty,

Drumbrae South, Edinburgh.

MICHAEL Settle's report of the evidence provided by international law expert Professor Alan Boyle to the House of Lords Constitution Committee poses a number of questions in the event of a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, not the least of which would seem to be an apparent avoidance by the major players in the debate of any discussion of the issues raised by Prof Boyle ("2015 poll 'could be chaotic' in event of a Yes vote", The Herald, March 15).

He points to the possibility of special legislation preventing Scottish MPs or candidates standing at the 2015 General Election or, alternatively, if allowed to stand, all Scottish MPs then standing down upon independence, earmarked for March 2016.

The numbers game is staggering; especially for Labour, which has 41 out of 59 MPs,but also for the Liberal Democrats who number 11.

If a Labour government were elected in 2015, the removal of Scottish MPs in 2016 would probably deprive it of a majority and lead to another General Election and the possibility of a near-permanent Conservative majority in the House of Commons. It would be interesting the hear the views of the combatants in the referendum debate on these issues.

John M Sinclair,

30 Hayward Avenue, Carluke.

ALEX Salmond should factor in an additional hurdle for an independent Scotland to navigate before being able to join the EU. East European MEPs are telling me that they will insist on transitional measures being applied to any new EU accession state, including Scotland. This is because they had to suffer harsh transitional measures when they joined and they are adamant new member states can expect no special favours.

When 10 East European and other countries acceded to the EU in 2004, subsidies for farmers were phased in over a period of 10 years, only reaching parity with the rest of Europe this year. This was also the case for the Bulgarians and Romanians who joined in 2007. Similarly, when Croatia joined the EU last year, they had an additional restriction of 70% placed on their budget for fisheries.

The EU also allows for restrictions on the freedom of movement of workers and a five-year restriction period for transport carriers from new accession states to operate national road haulage services, giving these Eastern European MEPs additional tools with which to make life difficult for Scotland.

An independent Scotland would require the approval of an absolute majority of MEPs before acceding. The cost of achieving this majority support would be the application of these severe restrictions and transitional measures which would devastate our farmers, fishermen, hauliers, and workers.

This isn't "Tory scaremongering"; it's reality.

Struan Stevenson MEP,

The European Parliament,

Rue Wiertz,

Brussels.