Balanced books?

Published on 22/09/2012 00:00

I SUppose that it was inevitable that the assertion of Iain Duncan-Benefits-Slasher-Smith that an independent Scotland would be unable to finance its social obligations without raising taxes would be met by broadsides from the usual suspects (Letters, 21 September), but, in a way, I wish they had not dignified his ignorance with a response.

It will suit the unionists well if the referendum campaign is fought over the fields of economics and self-interest – whereas the question we face should not be “can Scotland 
afford to be an independent nation?” but “do we want Scotland to be an independent nation?”

If the answer to the latter question is yes, then it will be up to us to find the money to 
finance our way of life.

No-one need panic: David McEwan Hill correctly states that our public purse is not wholly oil dependent, although he might have pointed out that about 50 per cent of our tax payers are public servants, who at present pay more than 70 per cent of the income tax it would fall to Holyrood to collect – it’s about time we honoured those who actually pay the bills.

What is reasonably certain is that Scotland could not be run as it is with less money at the disposal of Holyrood, and those who clamour for a reduction in numbers of public employees must understand that, if they are successful in that argument, the private sector will have to make up for the tax shortfall that will imply… and it’s not going to like that.

David Fiddimore

Calton Road

Edinburgh