The SNP has failed to meet its target for carbon emissions for the third year running (your report, 11 June). Emissions went up instead of down. Yet we are told that Scotland is still on target!
A very uneasy looking environment minister stated on Scotland 2014 (10 June) that one of the reasons for the failure to meet the “stretching” target was that we had a cold winter last year. Well, who could ever have foreseen that Scotland might have a cold winter? A drop in the price of coal seemed to be another contributory factor.
One wonders if the targets in the white paper have been pitched at a similarly “stretching” level in order to achieve the ultimate target of seducing the unsuspecting public to vote for independence.
The promised economic boom leading to the promised social equality is posited on targets such as increases in productivity, in employment for women and immigrants and so on.
Are these unattainable or merely “stretching”? If or when they are not met will we be told that a decrease is actually an increase? Or that the setback was due to a flurry of snow in November?
The failure to meet emissions targets and the unconvincing excuses should concentrate the minds of voters powerfully on the fact that this is a referendum and not an election.
There is no going back in five or six years’ time if the forecast of 27 economists in research produced by the Centre for Macroeconomics (Perspective, 10 June) proves to be correct – that Scotland would be worse off as an independent country.
Braid Hills Avenue