Full facts essential for a fair referendum

ANDREW Rosie (Letters, 13 October) implies that the SNP paper Your Scotland, Your Voice, published in 2009, contains enough information to enable us to make up our minds on the merits of independence. However, I still ask: how are the lay citizens of Scotland to know upon which of the conflicting assessments of the economics of independence can they safely base their referendum vote?

There is only one solution to that conundrum and that is for there to be an objective evaluation carried out by a team of internationally respected and independent economists.

I would be prepared to make a modest financial contribution to the costs of such an initial economic evaluation/risk assessment/cost benefit analysis, call it what you will, and I cannot be alone in that. Scottish civil society surely has the wherewithal, including I hope the will, to get this project under way.

Once at least an attempt has been made to address the economic arguments for and against independence, we can then move on to the much more important non-materialistic elements of the independence debate, such as the synergistic values of a United Kingdom and, furthermore, the extent to which the outside world, especially the English, recognises and values them.

We, the people, must be sufficiently informed to enable us to take this important debate out of the hands of politicians and the cybernats.

If we are not to be so empowered I suggest that a mass abstention in the referendum vote would not only be justifiable, it would, indeed, be our duty assuming that is there is not a voting option along the lines of “not enough information to enable me to make up my mind”.

John Milne

Ardgowan Drive

Uddingston

IS THERE any narrative at all that can arouse Scottish Labour from its political slumber? Gerry Hassan asked some of the relevant questions (Perspective, 15 October) but didn’t focus on the crucial one: that is, should it define the term “devolution max” and then place it right at the heart of its programme in the run-up to an independence referendum? Should that policy be the engine that can allow it to realise its claims to the party of social justice?

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander made a key point in his recent speech at Stirling University highlighting that Scottish Labour should not be a party griping about the supposed evils of Thatcherism, or one that displays a sour class consciousness or one that is increasingly vague about what it means by social equality. These are the old stories.

The new ones need to recognise a perfectly legitimate desire in Scotland. People want to see Scotland having more and more control over its own affairs (something that goes beyond the confusing Calman proposals). They are, however, not yet fully convinced that control needs to take the form of full independence.

Devo max – full control of taxation and all aspects of government expenditure apart from defence and foreign affairs – does provide a vision. It has shortfalls but could provide Mr Alexander with his means towards the end of social justice.

He would still have to spell out where he wants to go on youth unemployment, local tax, renewable energy, making sure everyone has a decent, warm, secure home, getting more people into meaningful jobs.

But unless Alexander makes clear where he wants to go on the constitution, the public will continue to look cynically at any claims he makes of building a more prosperous and more equal society.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes