IN WEDNESDAY'S National, Kate Forbes composed a rousing speech-style article about a vision of what an independent Scotland would have to offer, being so much different to what we have as an unequal part of the UK union.
What follows is my vision!
First and foremost is the value of my state pension, being the lowest in Europe. It has been mooted in the past that a Scottish state pension would be an average of most EU countries' pensions at around £350 a week. Well that’ll do me nicely, thank you very much.
READ MORE: Kate Forbes: We need a renewed vision of a future Scotland
Secondly is the currency question which might have lost us the debate in 2014. The independent Scottish Currency Group have had published in The National a variety of explanations over a long period time.
Each one has agreed that a Scottish pound would have the same value as the pound sterling in the beginning, making no difference to our individual spending. However, an eventual flotation would find the pound Scots making its own value on the world currency markets.
We already have our own legal system, health service, education, police and other public services; all of which would benefit from increased public spending, due to the fact that all the monies currently sent to the English Treasury would remain in Scotland, plus much more, from increased foreign investment for example.
All of this without hindrance from Westminster and Alister Jack.
READ MORE: Half of UK voters don’t know what Keir Starmer stands for, survey shows
Our farming and fishing industries will benefit from increased investment, as will all other Scottish produce, such as forestry, whisky of course, and our very own green energy in all its manifestations, being water, wind and hydrogen.
Income tax would be adjusted to create a more equitable income, thus reducing poverty, hopefully altogether. Business rates could also be adjusted so that businesses might reinvest more, and so provide better salaries for their employees.
Even better might be a plan to localise central government more, giving more power to councils. Alongside this might be land procurement to provide cheaper and warmer housing. Central government could also create the wherewithal to enable it to bring private land under state control.
All these improvements can be achieved with the independence to which a growing majority of the Scottish population is already aspiring. All of the above is easily possible in an independent country.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
IT was the Scottish Parliament that voted to take us into the Union with the English one. Graeme McCormick (Long Letter, Jun 26) says it’s up to our Scottish MPs to get us out of it. If we get a majority of the Scottish seats at the next UK/Westminster election, they withdraw, form a provisional government and declare the dissolution of the union.
He has a degree in law and makes this seem so simple. I think we’ve four MPs with law degrees, what do they make of this? Perhaps Graeme has the preliminary mechanism correct?
READ MORE: Jamie Greene hints at tensions within Scottish Tories after reshuffle
But behind this I think Humza Yousaf’s plans for a draft legal text for withdrawal, our route back into the EU, and a new interim written constitution are all needed. I think the timing for a Scots currency must be slotted in too. Can I suggest a flow chart is prepared showing all the connected items and the timescales needed to complete them?
I’d suggest to the Alba Party that this is not the time to suggest a new coalition to fight the coming General Election. If there is one way of confusing the voting public, this would be it. In addition, it is my belief that Alex Salmond, now founder of Alba, lost us the last referendum by failure to address people’s concerns about currency and pensions.
I only hope the SNP are involving Business for Scotland in their deliberations. They at least understand the complexities and the interactions involved.
Catriona Grigg
Embo
GOVERNING “as if you live in the early days of a better nation” is what we demand of the Scottish Government.
I wholeheartedly agree with Graeme McCormick. He has set out, in some detail, a blueprint for achieving fairness in a wellbeing economy through a system of land taxation that could be implemented tomorrow.
Having read about his “annual ground floor and roof rent” (AGFRR), it surprises me that I have been unable to find a critique arguing against his proposals. The only response that I have seen is of the “You just can’t, Colin” variety. And, of course, that helps no-one.
READ MORE: Senior SNP MP Stewart Hosie to stand down at General Election
The undecided voters need to see something meaningful in place in terms of addressing the inequalities of land ownership, household incomes and funding for public services. Our “better nation” will take action on these issues. AGFRR is a way of doing that now. If it’s not, then let’s hear about a better way.
Sandy Carmichael
Moray
IN Monday’s National there was a beautiful picture of a butterfly on a flower. Unfortunately the name “Sweet William” was in honour of the Duke of Cumberland. He was the man who ordered the genocide in the Highlands following Culloden.
An alternative name for the flower in Scotland is “Stinking Billy”.
This is one plant which will never appear in my garden.
Margaret Pennycook
Pollokshields
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel