TAVISH Scott in his column yesterday (Perspective, 13 December) gets a number of things wrong regarding the conduct of the referendum campaign.
First, there has been no change in the Yes Scotland policy on accepting donations from overseas. We said at our May launch that we would accept sums of up to £500 from individuals based outside Scotland, but would accept larger donations only from individuals on the electoral register in Scotland. That position is unchanged and enables the many Scots living overseas to make a small contribution towards a better future for their country.
Second, I have given an undertaking that our funding sources will be declared and transparent and that any donor contributing more than £7,500 will be identified.
So, contrary to his claims, there will be no mystery as to how Yes Scotland is funded. Can Tavish Scott give a similar commitment on behalf of the No campaign and can he take more care in what he says about Yes Scotland?
Andrew HN Gray (Letters, 13 December) continues to indulge in wishful thinking by believing his own narrow interpretation of recent events surrounding the independence debate.
The claim that the SNP’s vision of independence is no longer attainable appears to contradict the view of Dr Daniel Kenealy (Perspective, 13 December) who seeks to rationalise conflicting political and legal opinions by applying a little of the common sense that regrettably also seems to have been lost in much of the recent reporting of a media promulgating news under anti-independence headlines on an almost daily basis.
If the “better together” argument is, indeed, so compelling, why is it that the campaign has still not risen above deliberate scaremongering, character assassination and exaggeration of each and every uncertainty attached to a vote for independence when even if Scotland remains in the Union nothing is guaranteed in this changing and uncertain world we inhabit?
Are Mr Gray and his fellow supporters of the current constitutional arrangement so deluded that they believe the system of government that is failing so many in our society cannot be fundamentally improved upon?
Or, is it because Mr Gray and others are themselves simply incapable of constructing a more positive vision for the people of these islands that they succumb to their own fears and hypocritically seek to deride the views of those who, at least for the people living in the north of Britain, see a path forward, albeit generally a rocky road, to a brighter tomorrow?