Big guns of No campaign will turn out to be damp squibs

The Liberal Democrats have been muttering platitudes about home rule for more than 100 years and suddenly, two years into the referendum campaign, Sir Menzies Campbell has remembered that it was their idea in the first place. There were none of these bold words about his "proposals" when there was a chance for the LibDems to influence their Coalition partners to put an extra question in the referendum that might have delivered greater devolution to Holyrood.

Likewise, Gordon Brown had three years as Prime Minister and four years as ex-PM, but has only now decided that Scotland (in his own words) objects to being trapped within the UK's "unitary and centralised" system and is demanding a "partner­ship of equals". These phrases have been unashamedly borrowed, word for word, from Alex Salmond. Why can Gordon Brown not just call for a Yes vote and go back into hiding?

It has taken both these "big guns" two years to come round to admitting that the proponents of independence have convincing arguments and they need to take some wind out of their sails. They can't even pretend that they agree about what they are proposing and are making about as much noise as damp squibs.

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road, Lenzie.

GORDON Brown talks of a "liberation struggle" against poverty and unemployment. Unfortunately, he sets out a vision of resource pooling and power sharing which has more rhetoric than reality.

Let us not forget that by the end of the Blair/Brown years, as an Institute For Fiscal Studies (IFS) report makes clear, the UK had increasing income inequality, and child poverty was rising dramatically. Privatisation of public services was reducing wages, often for already poorly paid part-time women workers. The establish­ment of foundation hospitals and foundation schools in England had begun the process of dismantling the NHS and public education. House price rises were out of control, and property speculation thrived. Trade union rights were not restored, but financial services institutions were allowed to abuse their responsibilities following deregulation. The wealthy enhanced their bonus culture, and multinational businesses evaded their taxes. The financial crash was an event waiting to happen, and it did. UK Government policy under Labour opened the door to the devastating excesses of the Coalition Government.

Mr Brown's "radical" new Britain would have Scotland sharing its resources, but Westminster still holding power over the Scottish economy, pensions and welfare, defence and foreign affairs. His proposals would still put West­minster in charge of taxation, and both taking and spending the vast majority of Scottish tax income.

There is a clear majority consensus within Scotland in support of significant change to create a fairer society. All the evidence suggests a different consensus in the rest of the UK. In Scotland, the challenge for Labour voters is to put aside their enmity to the Nationalists and join the multi-interest campaign for Scottish independence. This offers the only realistic way to achieve our common aim of social justice for Scotland's common weal.

Andrew Reid,

Armadale, Shore Road,

Cove, Argyll.

AS I chaired the meeting in Victoria Hall, Helensburgh, to which your correspondent Colin Finnie refers (Letters, March 10) I must correct some errors.

The meeting was arranged by Yes Helensburgh & Lomond and not by the SNP; likewise the pamphlet on Faslane. Yes Helensburgh & Lomond contains people from different parties and none who are engaging with the public as energetically as possible. It seems to be working, as the hall was full.

To my knowledge only one speaker is a member of a political party and part-time politician.

The strength of the message was the greater for the diversity of contributors. Everyone had the opportunity to ask questions and did. There was nothing exclusive.

Graeme McCormick,

Redhouse Cottage,

Arden,

by Loch Lomond.

IN reply to Colin Finnie's worries about an independent Scotland being "hard work", voting for the Union will certainly be hard work, as every Westminster party has promised unremitting austerity and a continuation of the policies that have failed Scotland for the last 300 years.

Malcom Cordell,

35 Fort Street,

Broughty Ferry, Dundee.

THERE seems to be a belief being put about that the SNP have abolished the dreaded PFI for public sector contracts. John Scott Roy (Letters, March 11) is the latest to promote this myth. In fact the SNP's favoured mechanism for public sector capital contracts, the Non-Profit Distribution (NPD) method of funding, is a PFI in which financing is purely by loans with no equity element and some of the financial excess at the end of the contract is distributed to a named charity rather than the PFI company.

It is also a fact the first NPD contracts were introduced by the previous Labour administration at Holyrood. The SNP is using NPD because its mooted policy of financing projects through a Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) was never plausible and fell apart when tested. So not only have the SNP not abolished PFI, they are actively promoting a version of PFI which was pioneered by their opponents and which, while in opposition, they greatly disparaged. They are doing so because their own policy failed.

Anyone interested can find the facts in Non Profit Distribution: The Scottish Approach to Private Finance in Public Services written by Mark Hellowell and Allyson Pollock and published by Cambridge University Press in 2011. It may seem like a small point, but if we are to decide the case for independence on the basis of facts then it is better that the facts are correctly understood and the debate kept open and honest.

Alex Gallagher,

12 Phillips Avenue,

Largs.

MAY I suggest to John Scott Roy that Westminster is no more in thrall to the interests of big business than are the SNP under their current leadership? This is represented by Alex Salmond's determination to do the bidding of the wind farm lobby in spite of the growing doubts about the effectiveness of his renewables policy in combatting global CO2 emissions.

However, this is no new phenomenon. He got it badly wrong before when he promoted the interests of the banking sector by expressing, just before the banking collapse, his opinion that Westminster's banking regulations were far too stringent.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive,

Uddingston.