YESTERDAY’S article by Kirsty Hughes regarding the potential for a forced independence referendum is a timely wake-up call (Sturgeon’s hand could be forced over indyref2, The National, October 18). Many of the banks and others, such as the NHS and farmers, are working up or enacting a plan B as a result of the chaotic UK Government position.

I think most people would bet on a “hard Brexit that covers an exit deal, including a transition period, and an outline future free trade deal – though with no guarantee such a free trade deal would be agreed and ratified in the years after Brexit” coming about.

This will be very damaging to Scotland, her businesses and her people. Kevin McKenna’s article on the steadfastness of the 45 per cent Yes vote (The National, October 18) also reminds us that a successful referendum requires six per cent of the voting population, or about 300,000 people, to change their position.

In order to convince these 300,000 people, it is important to put in place a robust Scottish independence proposition, particularly concerning currency, a border with England, the strength of the Scottish economy with a realistic position regarding oil, pensions and any inherited debt servicing.

I do believe that all of these items can be addressed successfully and Scotland’s position as one of the wealthiest nations in the world – even using discredited GERS figures, as well as credit agency reports that have indicated an independent Scotland would have an AAA rating, support that view. However, the strength of the Unionist written and broadcast media and their willingness to – put simply – tell lies, made it very difficult to get this message across to the “ordinary” person before the last referendum and nothing has changed in this regard other than the appearance of The National on the scene.

In making a presentation to any audience, it is accepted by all professionals that you need to, first, tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you have told them. In advertising, repeating the message again and again and again is also accepted wisdom if you want to get people to hear the message and buy into it.

Any independence umbrella body, political parties and organisations such as Women for Independence and Business for Scotland driving the independence cause need to take this thought on board: it is all very well and good to work like crazy during the referendum period to get your message across but casting this seed will be of no value if the ground hasn’t been well ploughed long before.

There consequently needs to be continuous and consistent re-iteration of the case for independence identifying reasons why the “ordinary” person should welcome it because it will be better for them. For example, any communication from local MPs or councillors to their constituents should cover this topic, reiterating the same message again and again.

There need to be repeated mailshots and monthly leafleting to get this recurring message across to those who will not be actively seeking out this information on social media.

This does cost money, I know. Perhaps one way to go about raising that money is to start a crowdfunding campaign to support a long-term communication programme. The key messages need to be agreed soon and communicated by everybody in the same form again and again and again if independence is to be won. Sitting back and waiting for the referendum itself could be too late.
David Cairns of Finavon
via email

IT is becoming clearer by the day that politicians at Westminster see Brexit as a heaven-sent opportunity to keep to themselves most of the powers due to be returned from the EU when Britain leaves. Many of these powers, however, relate to issues that are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly. People in Scotland concerned should be helping to prepare the ground for this country to become independent.

Only in this way can we hope to remain in the EU – as was the wish of a majority of Scots in the EU referendum – and retain the benefits of EU membership including all the powers that brings to the Scottish Parliament.
Peter Swain
via email

CAT Boyd and Michael Fry’s articles (The National, October 17) made interesting reading as they offered different perspectives on wealth inequality. I think the current debate around using Scottish taxation powers to raise more tax to fund public services and possibly tackle wealth inequality is needed. I think this is a complex issue but for some time now I’ve been convinced that shifting the burden of taxation from income to wealth is the way forward.

The council tax should be replaced by land value tax. Those who own land would be liable for this tax, not tenants. Further land reform would be needed in order to register the owners of all land in Scotland here and not in a tax haven. This would tackle tax avoidance.

Rent control would also be needed to prevent landlords increasing rents to mitigate any increase in their taxation liabilities. This change could be introduced concurrently with a cut in income tax or other taxes related to productivity.

This might boost productivity and workers’ spending power. Those on the right of politics will find it harder to argue against such changes if the aim is to reward productivity. 
K Wright 
Inverness