Electorate needs hard facts on the impact of independence

The public need to know what they are voting for and it would be good to see spreadsheets showing how we are being governed right now from Holyrood and Westminster compared to how it would look after independence.

This should be in clearly understood text for the public to understand and should include before and after data such as organisation structures, economy charts, distribution of pensions and welfare , immigration policy, currency and Euro membership etc. Only then can we make an informed judgment. The Yes campaign is promoting utopia whilst the No campaign is preaching fear, uncertainty and doubt, although I agree with the questions they are asking.

I am always an advocate of "if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it", which is how I regard the current situation. Alex Salmond following his Ireland and Iceland economies comparisons to Scotland, these countries are now on the back burner due to their failures and he has switched his attention to Norway and Denmark as benchmarks for independence.

I have travelled to both these countries on business and as a tourist and they are horrendously expensive. It is claimed that they have excellent healthcare (which is disputed) and welfare systems but this has to be paid for. In Norway, standard income tax is higher than in the UK and VAT is 25 %, with 14 % VAT on food. In short, everything is possible but it takes time and costs money. I am sure if the Scottish public were made aware of the differences - which they can access on the internet - they would give this idealism a wide berth.

Andrew Kerr,

28 Benview Terrace,

Alloa.

Am I the only citizen in Scotland to be suffering from a major depression called September 18th 2014. While I will certainly play my small voting part in ensuring that our great country remains part of the United Kingdom, it must be time now for the UK media to give viewers, readers and listeners a rest from the incessant coverage of the Scottish referendum which is still a year away.

Voters, who have yet to make up their minds, have many months ahead to make up their views, and even they will appreciate a major cooling of referendum coverage from the UK media and politicians of both sides for a few months.

The world is moving on and there are many important issues that we would like to hear about. The Scottish referendum has now passed the boring and snoring level. Give us all peace.

Iain J McConnell,

Speedybank,

Station Road,

Gifford,

East Lothian.

It seems that Johan Lamont is opposed to Scotland's independence on the grounds of her being a socialist and wishing to demonstrate solidarity with the people of England. As someone who was a child of the 1950s in Scotland, I wonder if I am alone in thinking that it is a strange kind of socialist who:

a) Wants to abolish free prescriptions in Scotland;

b) Remove bus passes from the over 60s in Scotland;

c) Re-introduce university tuition fees for young people in Scotland.

If this is Ms Lamont's idea of socialism, or what passes for socialism within the Scottish Labour Party these days, then it almost makes the late Prime Minister Edward Heath seem like Arthur Scargill by comparison.

Turning to the desire to demonstrate solidarity with the people of England, I well recall that argument being used at the height of the Thatcher era when much of Scotland's industry was being put to the sword and economic misery heaped upon many of our working class communities. No doubt Ms Lamont would claim that communities in England suffered from Thatcher's excesses as well. The difference, however, is that the people of Scotland never voted for Thatcherism but we still got it, regardless.

The collective amnesia of the Labour Party in Scotland or the absolute denial of what happened to our country in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997 is a major cause for concern among those of us who will never forget it.

Next September gives Scotland the chance to say never again will we have a government that we did not vote for. Sadly, that point does not seem to matter to Johan Lamont and Scottish Labour.

Gail Finlayson,

6 Larch Tree Way,

Banchory.

I REFER to the front-page headline ("Economy emerges as key independence battleground", The Herald, September 18). While undoubtedly a healthy economy is a good thing, I wonder if what the result of the poll is really saying is that we, the voters, regard improvement in our own personal financial circumstances as more important than anything else. If so, this may be partly because we have been brainwashed into such a way of thinking not only by Conservative governments at Westminster, but also by a Labour Party which seems to have abandoned any pretence at socialism. It would be a pity if canvassing now simply means offering "cash for votes".

Even when Alex Salmond claims that an independent Scotland would offer a "fairer society", he seems to do so under his breath, as if he doesn't think this is really a vote-winner. But there is a large body of research (eg Professor Richard Wilkinson, "The Spirit Level", 2009) which shows that countries where there is a smaller gap between rich and poor are countries which enjoy better health, reduced crime rates and a better quality of life, almost regardless of the absolute wealth of the country as a whole.

Maybe we really could be happier with a bit less cash in our pockets if we lived in a more equal society. Could independence give us this?

Sandy Small,

245 Wilton Street,

Glasgow.

The UK national debt is presently one trillion pounds, and Scotland's share of that will be about one hundred thousand million pounds, or £20,000 for every man woman and child.

After independence, that debt would become real. Simply walking away from it would not be an option.

How would an independent Scotland even service such a debt, let alone repay it.

Before we vote in the referendum, Scotland's First Minister - who has never provided hard facts about the financial implications of independence - should explain how he proposes to deal with this situation.

Malcolm Parkin,

15 Gamekeepers Road,

Kinnesswood,

Kinross.

Over the past couple of days we have all been well informed by the media that it is only a year until Scotland decides her future.

The economy seems to be the dominant factor and the question often arises over whether Scotland can survive alone or needs handouts from the Westminster Government, and what happens when the oil dries up.

But how about turning those questions around? With regard to handouts, Scotland currently contributes 9.9% to the UK economy and gets 9.3% in return. As for oil revenues, what is the UK exchequer going to do when revenue from Scotland's oil dries up, or Scotland becomes independent and takes control of her oil revenues?

A day is a long time in politics, so a year could seem like a lifetime, and 2014 will be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the people of Scotland to decide for themselves, something many nations crave for. Let us grasp the opportunity.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock,

Falkirk.

As reported ("A year to go and still no clarity", The Herald, September 19) Nick Clegg, has announced that a No vote will still mean that the Scottish Parliament will receive enhanced powers. Alistair Darling has alluded to this, too, though he has yet to elaborate even as far as Nick Clegg's roughly sketched offer. David Cameron, the UK's political leader, doesn't want to commit to anything yet, an interesting position for a leader to take when faced with the prospect of losing a third of his constituency's land mass and 90% of its oil.

Presumably such enhanced powers will be designed with a view to making Scots more rather than less satisfied with the political settlement than they are now. This is an interesting idea. As the debate to date has hinged very largely on economics, one would assume that a settlement which left nobody any better off wouldn't attract a great deal of enthusiasm and that there would be at least a possibility of Scots being better off.

I am interested to know how the people of the other nation, the principality and the province will react on hearing that Scots are to be given preferential treatment within the UK.

I look forward to the Westminster parties presenting this to the electorate in 2015, while at the same time instructing the English, Welsh and Northern Irish to hold on tight for another five years of austerity.

However, as this would only come about if we vote No next year, I see no reason why they should, no good reason to expect them to and no good argument as to why our neighbours shouldn't be out on the streets protesting at a glaring democratic iniquity of the type we in Scotland wouldn't accept.

Since May 2011, an unceasing racket of unionist chanting has demanded "clarity" on Nationalist plans in the event of a Yes vote we are assured won't happen.

As a No vote is a racing certainty, apparently, I'd like some clarity from the unionist parties about what we might expect from them. After all, they have the benefit of their own certitude on which to construct their plans.

Martin Morrison,

5 Inverpark,

Lochinver,

Sutherland.