IAIN Macwhirter is, I am sure, correct that everyone involved in the referendum campaign universally condemns inequality and poverty and aim to achieve social justice ("Encouraging consensus at the heart of the campaign", The Herald, September 4).
It all sounds so strongly progressive and heartening.
The problem is, of course, that as policy has developed in Scotland in the past we have been fairly weak in these areas: independent or not, federal or more devolved, what is going to change?
The headline big-spending policies that have been so popular for the majority of Scotland (free university tuition, free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free transport for the over-sixties) all entail giving everyone the benefits that the poor had. These are progressive policies, but they do not tackle poverty.
If poverty and inequality are to be tackled there will need to be significant shifts of resources to Glasgow and west central Scotland. Assuming that public expenditure in other areas is to remain the same, taxation both of income and capital will have to increase.
Romantic claims are one thing, but delivering on them is another matter. Will an Edinburgh government really be strong enough to take the necessary steps?
Those steps will need to be bold to be effective. (The best example, though probably medium-term only, was of course the Tony Blair Government's Tax Credit system). Vague comments about moving to the living wage are going to have minimal impact unless the living wage is to be sharply increased from the amounts currently mooted.
A government that wished to work with unions and employers and was committed to progressive taxation of income and capital seems the only sensible way forward. Progressive taxation would entail cutting VAT on essentials and completely reforming tax on property. Would any conceivable government in Scotland be strong enough to do this on its own?
The observation that the ideal arrangement would be some sort of federalism is one with which I concur. How we ended up with a referendum that, in effect, disenfranchises those who favour that option is a major blow to democratic values. Whatever the result, no-one will be able to claim that the referendum accurately reflects the "will of the people".
Those who query the false dichotomy of the referendum vote are going to have a demanding time of it over the next couple of years whatever the result.
Paul D Brown,
17 Kelvinside Terrace South, Glasgow.
BEFORE Ed Miliband can make good any of his pledges to Scotland ("No campaign intensifies campaign to secure Labour vote,The Herald, September 4) he has a few obstacles to overcome, in the shape of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, all of whom, either singly or in coalition, are most likely to form the next UK Government.
Mr Miliband must also try to look appealing to the voters of Middle England, and somehow convince them that Labour has learned its lessons from its New Labour experiment, but has not returned to being Old Labour, as that is a vote loser south of Gretna.
However, Mr Miliband's biggest hurdle of all is in the shape of the voters north of Gretna, because they know and he knows they know, that if they stay within the Union they will always risk Scotland being damaged by Tory governments we never voted for.
It is a daunting task for Mr Miliband, especially as increasing numbers of Labour voters, mortified as to why Scottish Labour politicians are in bed with the Tories, and worse, appearing on platforms with them, are now enjoying the very real prospect of a Scotland, free from Tory Governments for ever, and are eager to sample the luxury of always getting the governments Scotland's voters democratically elect, instead of playing Westminster Roulette within the UK.
Now is the time for Labour's supporter to reclaim the proud, principled Labour Party of our fathers and our grandfathers. On September 18, we can say Yes, and look forward to seeing its like again.
Ruth Marr,
99 Grampian Road, Stirling.
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