We should compare competence of Westminster and Holyrood

The propaganda from the UK Government showing how Scotland would be worse off with independence is just that - propaganda. The forecasts from various supposedly-independent think-tanks all seem to be based on the assumption that an independent Scotland would follow exactly the same economic procedures that Westminster use. But already, it is clear, Scotland since devolution has diverged from some of those procedures. The divergence may not yet be substantial but its direction is. Those Westminster procedures led the UK into its present mess and are failing to get it out. Why should Scotland follow them?

When it comes to competence the Scottish Government has shown that it can perform quite well even though its budget is fixed by West­minster, its tax-raising power is very limited and it has little borrowing power. It has perpetrated few major blunders. (Let no-one mention the Parliament building since that shambles was of Westminster's doing, or the Edinburgh tram fiasco, which was pushed through by Labour and the other parties against the wishes of the SNP.)

On the other hand, Westminster has been responsible for a myriad of blunders over the last few decades. How many billions were wasted on the infelicitous Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures? How many when the Nimrod aircraft were destroyed? How many wasted in building two aircraft carriers which are unlikely ever to be effective? How many in cancelled ineffective IT projects? The list is endless.

With regard to the problem of tax avoidance, promises have been made by the Coalition Government to tighten up the requirements but, after three years or so, no change has occurred, nor does there seem to be any urgency. How many billions are lost to the Treasury through this failure?

An independent Scotland would have the opportunity to create a fair, understandable tax system without loopholes. That would not be difficult provided that the politicians are strong enough to withstand the inevitable self-serving pleas from large companies and wealthy individuals.

This does not mean that an independent Scotland would be free from outside influences nor from blunders. The written constitution should contain firm limitations on what its government can do financially. That is lacking under the Westminster system which allows governments to be as profligate as they like, with nobody being held to account except through the loss of power at subsequent elections.

John Scott Roy,

42 Galloway Avenue,

Ayr.

JAMES Finlay (Letters, January 20) makes several claims concerning Scotland's Future, the Scottish Government's White Paper on independence. Either he has misunderstood the document or is wilfully misrepresenting what it says. Unlike Mr Finlay, I did not obtain a copy from my local library, I simply did what tens of thousands of others did and accessed it online. Tens of thousands more have requested and received a printed copy through the post.

Mr Finlay has decided to express his opposition to independence by the classic strategy of setting up a false premise which he then shoots down. In other words, he says the White Paper states something it does not state at all, then gives his reasons for disagreeing with what it doesn't say in the first place.

For example, he rubbishes the position that Scotland could be part of Nato whilst not welcoming any nuclear vessels in her harbours. Yet the White Paper takes no such position. It simply confirms that Scotland would adopt the same approach as Norway and Denmark, both of whom allow Nato vessels to visit their ports without confirming or denying whether they carry nuclear weapons.

He seems incredulous that Scotland could be part of the United Nations yet reserve the right to decide for herself to which countries she would send her troops. Yet it is for each member state to decide and agree what role it takes in any military response. No member state is compelled to take part in such operations, and why should they be?

He then asserts that the White Paper claims that there will be no fuel poverty. Yet again, it says no such thing. What it says is that the costs of the current schemes to address fuel poverty and improve energy efficiency will be met from central government resources rather than passed on to householders through their energy bills, irrespective of income.

He implies disapprovingly that the Scottish Government will have a no-redundancy policy for civil servants and NHS employees. Yet the White Paper says something quite different. It states that for those employees transferring from the employ of Westminster to that of the Scottish Government, continuing terms and conditions will be negotiated and that a no-compulsory redundancy policy will apply.

Mr Finlay also says that we "cannot doubt" that Faslane has still a contribution to make to world peace. I think there are many reasons to doubt it and, according to the polls, so does the majority of Scottish people.

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road,

Lenzie.

JIM Sillars talks of Scotland being significantly weakened without sovereignty ("Independent socialist nation would destroy myth of Scots inadequacy", Herald Agenda, January 23). In true old-Labour style he looks for the power to intervene in the national interest with particular reference to whisky, oil, energy and land.

His pitch is that we should vote Labour in the first post- independence election. His view of sovereignty is clearly one of higher business taxes and even national­isation to support the dependency culture that sadly exists in Scotland. This would result in businesses departing in their droves to countries where business is encouraged. A move south of the Border would be very attractive to many of our biggest companies.

I have no idea if an independent Scotland would be better off. There are still many questions to be answered on this. One thing I am sure of, though, is that a Labour government in Scotland would waste any benefits very quickly. Look how rapidly Gordon Brown caused financial chaos.

I note that Mr Sillars's book is called In Place of Fear. Perhaps it should be called The Real Reason for Fear.

Iain Walker,

9 Gartconnell Road,

Bearsden.

YOUR report on the findings of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey highlights a diverse range of opinions on the issue of defence and independence ("Referendum voters split on key proposals", The Herald January 23).

Instinctively I have never been convinced by the argument that having big armed forces, or being part of a bigger country, automatically makes us safer.

Prompted by your article to do some research, I found the most relevant analysis to be the Global Peace Index, carried out annually by a respected international institute. It examines a range of objective indicators which enable all countries to be ranked in terms of their levels of peace and security. Interestingly, the safest, most peaceful countries are small independent nations (Denmark comes out top), and the report explicitly highlights the apparent benefits enjoyed by small, stable nations.

All of Scotland's small, independent neighbours are in the top 12. Larger countries, on the other hand, often fare much worse, with the UK ranked 44th, just behind Vietnam. The United States - with the world's largest armed forces - lags even further behind.

Taking a global, objective look at our defence options, it appears that small is indeed beautiful in terms of giving us the peaceful existence to which we aspire.

C Hegarty,

7 Glenorchy Road,

North Berwick.

The last two lines of To a mouse are quoted by John Taylor to caution against the Nationalist campaign for independence (Letters, January 24. )

To this I would add the preceding verse:

"The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men,

Gang aft agley

An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,

For promised joy":

I rest my case.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road,

Kilbirnie.

I DISAGREE (unusually) with Iain AD Mann (Letters, January 22). An independent Scotland will not make the United Kingdom cease to exist. The Union of the Crowns pre-dates that of the parliaments by 104 years, and will continue after independence.

But then as now, sovereignty in Scotland will rest with the people, rather than the Crown.

Bill Ward,

7 Leslie Street,

Glasgow.