Independence movement has become a crusade for socialism

The independence movement has become a crusade to build big-state socialism in one country. In my view it has a visceral hatred of Conservatives and Liberals and sees England and the English as the source of wicked and immoral ideas. It matters not to the separatists that wherever and whenever state socialism has been pursued - whether democratically as under Gordon Brown in the UK or Francois Hollande in France, or by the one-party dictatorships in Eastern Europe - it has ended in public bankruptcy and private subjugation. These results alone ought to be enough to deter liberty-loving working and middle-class voters from supporting independence.

But the SNP is right to believe that it must detach left-wing votes from, and thereby break, the Labour Party in order to have even the slightest chance of winning. This has been the standard approach of nationalist parties throughout European history.

Recently we learned that Sir Charles Gray, erstwhile Labour leader of the old Strathclyde Regional Council, has defected ("Labour stalwart declares support for independent Scotland", The Herald, November 4).

Having spent my career as a university lecturer, I know of many former colleagues in Scottish universities, usually (as one might expect) in arts and social sciences (but rarely in economics, a largely neo-liberal field), who are swinging to independence - anything to cling to the ideas and beliefs that sustained them through their revolutionary youth and their climb up the career path.

Having been assiduously unideological for decades and having meekly submitted to being traduced in every argument, the Scottish Conservatives and Liberals are largely impotent to influence the outcome of this debate. The future of the Union hangs by the not-insubstantial thread of the working-class Labour vote. It would of course be helpful if middle-class non-socialists returned to their senses and traditional allegiances. Fortunately, as the recent Dunfermline by-election revealed, this seems to be happening: the separatists lost by a 2:1 margin.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.

THE state pensioners and benefit claimants of Scotland should pay special attention to the White Paper on independence to be published tomorrow.

SNP Ministers have so far failed to contact the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) about transitional arrangements for the payment of pensions and benefits in an independent Scotland, and their own advisers have warned of the serious risk of disruption to these payments, even though some benefits are administered from Scotland.

In fairness, the SNP has also failed to contact the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office, and the Treasury about transitional arrangements, so the DWP should not feel alone.

Let us hope that the White Paper will contain more than the assumptions, hopes, and wishful thinking that have so far been at the core of the independence argument.

Malcolm Parkin,

15 Gamekeepers Road,

Kinnesswood, Kinross.

ONE of the problems which continues to cast a shadow over the independence debate - to the detriment of both sides - is the public's demand for more information. Perhaps Dave McEwan Hill's (Letters, November 21) response to Ian Davidson (Letters, November 20) suggests why this is the case.

The problem with Mr McEwan Hill's letter is that it presents us with half of the true position when he suggests that Scotland should emulate Norway in its shipbuilding industry, quoting the 100 ships and 72 yards operating in that country. What he does not reveal is that much of the Norwegian shipbuilding sector is in Chinese ownership, or that there it has little or no hull-building (most hulls are built in China, Romania or Poland), or that most of the ships in question are of 20 metres or under.

Of course, it would not be impossible for Scotland to develop a similar industry. However, the complete story is this would entail the end of hull-building (and with it possibly the closure of Govan) and the conversion of remaining capacity to fitting-out for non-military shipbuilding. This would in turn present considerable difficulties. One of these would be the cost of investment to convert the yards for a new purpose. Another would be that niche markets in medium-sized shipbuilding are already filled to overcrowding: oil exploration support vessels by (yes) Norway, fishing vessels by Spain and super-yachts by the Netherlands. Account would also need to be taken of the reality that capacity on the Clyde could also displace existing Scottish operators in, for example, the north­east where they already build, fit-out and repair fishing and support vessels.

None of these problems is insurmountable, but these omissions in Mr McEwan Hill's letter illustrate the problem that the public has with information regarding both the detail and the principle of the referendum debate.

For too long those proposing independence have presented that option as being without difficulty and without losers. This is of course also the case with the Scottish Government's dossier on the economic options which could be available to an independent Scotland. What makes this particular dossier dodgy is that it does not commit to any of the options outlined, and it is therefore impossible to quantify the winners and losers and weigh them accordingly.

The Scottish people are not stupid. They know that any benefit must also imply a cost, and they will not accept a half-story which tells them otherwise, in this case, that independence will have no downside or disadvantages. The fatal dilemma for the Yes campaign is that in order to be credible to anyone other than the already committed, they will need to undermine their own case by presenting the downside as well as the advantages of their position.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

IAN Davidson states that "separa­tion shuts shipyards"; perhaps he can quantify how many shipyards the Union has saved since he was a boy ?

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.