If price is right

Your letters from Joe Darby, R Mill Irving, Ian Taylor and Allan J O’Connor (17 September) were headlined: “You can’t put a price on independence.” How very true.

Name one case throughout ­history where a new nation has been created or an old one reborn where the principal motive was self-interest or financial gain.

The essence of nationhood is the desire to govern one’s own ­affairs, to be fledged, to be responsible, to be seen, understood and judged as a national entity. In any change to the new or reborn state no soothsayer can truthfully declare what detailed con­sequences will arise.

It is, therefore, vital that the ­decision made next year by the people of Scotland is based on the correct premise, which is that we wish, or do not wish, to govern our own affairs as fully as is possible in the modern world.

It is a long-term decision that transcends the normal exchanges and arguments important to ­political parties and interest groups. Next year’s referendum will only have lasting value if the decision, either way, is seen to be above material gain or sectional interest.

Lindsay Matheson

Largo Road

St Andrews

So there might be a majority swing to a Yes vote if people can be promised a £500 a year ­increase in wages (your report, 16 September)?

On the face of it, this could be a cheap deal for the SNP and such a modest level of “incentive” to half the population could be affordable. But what about the following year? And the next 50?

Will we all be paying for votes in favour of independence just as we are subsidising the growth of wind farms?

This “£500 question” seems to be as incompetent as the “Yes/No” question itself. I might swing over for £500 a month, however, and see how it goes. Risk at any price?

John Addison

Midlothian Innovation Centre

Roslin, Midlothian

A big thank you to Jim Mather (Perspective, 17 September) for the clarity of his column in ­dispelling some of the sorely ­recycled myths about Scottish ­independence.

Thankfully, here is someone who bases his well-made points on fact rather than supposition.

A balanced, objective look at facts is very welcome set against the more venal scare- mongering put forth by current unionist commentators.

C Murphy

West Calder

West Lothian