I NOTE that the three Westminster party leaders have now vowed publicly to give Scotland more powers if we vote No, with a somewhat cynical timetable laid out to include St Andrew's Day and Burns Night.
This must seem for some to be an attractive promise but these three leaders, alone, are in no position to make such a promise.
There will be a General Election in 2015, the result of which is unknown and it may well result in a coalition again, perhaps with Ukip as a partner. Boris Johnston could well be the next UK Prime Minister and he has already publicly declared that there should be no more powers for Scotland.
Anyway, any proposal would have to receive the blessing of Westminster itself and the back-benchers, many of whom are in no way favourably disposed to Scotland, especially after the referendum campaign, irrespective of the result.
These promises may be well-intentioned politically to move the vote to No, but are in fact hollow and probably meaningless.
Nigel Dewar Gibb,
15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.
Almost inevitably, we reach the stage of the signed appeal from the leaders of the three Unionist parties. Let us ignore the bribe and its late entry on to the scene, after thousands have already voted. Let us consider whether we should believe these leaders and their pledges.
We do not need to consider the Tories' past record on promises before important votes in Scotland, such as Edward Heath's Declaration of Perth in 1968 and Alec Douglas-Home's constitutional review in 1979. Let us, instead, recall David Cameron's speech in 2009: "With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS."
Of Nick Clegg's pledge on tuition fees, there is not a great deal to add. Ed Miliband's changes of position are legion; child benefit for higher earners is simply one example.
These politicians have a track record of saying simply anything to get their way. Whether they subsequently fulfil their pledge is, to them, another matter entirely, and for another day. They are salesmen, not statesmen.
And they must think we Scots button up the back.
Gavin Brown,
Burnbridge Cottage, Manuel, Linlithgow.
THIS week I was, with 550 others, at a lecture at Glasgow University by Professor Sir Tom Devine (The Decline of the Anglo-Scottish Union, 1950-2014), one of a series arranged by The Stevenson Trust for Citizenship. Influencing factors on why the Union could imminently be broken were logically and clearly presented, with Prof Devine declaring his intention to support this outcome on Thursday. I found it remarkable then that in conclusion he opined that if devo-max had been on offer he would have joined 80 per cent of the electorate in voting for it.
How can this be? The mistrust of Westminster is well understood, but will the electorate really break the shared heritage and values and common ties of the UK, because, through misjudgment and/or arrogance, devo-max has not made its way on to this week's ballot sheet? Surely this is not good enough reason.
Gerald Wells,
19 Mitchell Drive, Rutherglen.
YOUR correspondent, Bill Laver (Letters, September 15), states that a No vote gives Scotland devo-max. No National Insurance contributions, no VAT, no corporation tax and no oil and gas taxes being retained by the Scottish Government is far short of devo-max. Instead we shall be helping to pay for a new Trident, HS2 between London & Birmingham, Crossrail 2 in London plus supporting a bloated, undemocratic and very expensive House of Lords.
In order to obtain our much-vaunted new powers, it is likely that politicians in the rest of the UK will insist on a trade-off in the form of reductions in the block grant (our pocket money). As a consequence, it is likely that the Scottish Government will be required to increase income tax in order to meet the resultant shortfall.
Gordon Evans,
5 York Drive,
Burnside, Rutherglen.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article