Increased chances

The comments of Barry Turner of the “Better Together – No Thanks” campaign (Letters, 11 June) may go down well during banter with his mates in the local pub or social club, but anyone who takes the time to consider his words more seriously will conclude that Mr Turner in fact seems to have little grasp of the reasons for our current predicament and the advantages of a targeted points-based immigration system.

For decades many talented and industrious Scots have been lost to England and beyond because of relatively poor opportunities here for employment and career development, thanks primarily to policies pursued by successive Westminster governments, both Labour and Tory.

This loss has not only deprived Scotland of these individuals, it has deprived our country of the jobs that young and ambitious people invariably create.

The comment that the SNP “is telling us that in an independent Scotland we will need a lot more immigration” not only misrepresents a projected increase of less than 10 per cent, it misses the critical point that future immigration policy would be aimed at meeting the specific needs of the Scottish economy, thus helping to create greater wealth and further jobs.

Perhaps Mr Turner might be more constructively occupied assessing how in decades to come we might require less immigration by helping more of our youth to realise their ambitions in Scotland, an important objective for many of those who will vote Yes in our forthcoming 
referendum.

Stan Grodynski

Longniddry

East Lothian

Barry Turner from the Better Together campaign (Letters, 10 June) gives us a perfect example of the kind of misinformation and scaremongering that runs throughout its campaign.

His rather disjointed letter tells us that “it is the SNP that is 
telling us that in an independent Scotland we will need a lot more ­immigration”.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what the SNP has said and is designed to appeal to 
the jingoistic undercurrents that ­unfortunately exist in much of the politics of today, particularly at Westminster.

It also continues the ever-present theme in the Better ­Together campaign that Alex ­Salmond is immortal and will be the First Minister of Scotland for ever more. The reality, of course, is that we can vote him out in 2016 if we don’t approve.

What Alex Salmond actually said is that an SNP government would aim to increase net migration by a small amount (2,000 per annum).

Despite the implications of Mr Turner’s letter, Alex Salmond has quite reasonably argued that this small increase in net migration could be achieved by creating the right sort of opportunities in Scotland.

The aim would be that 
more home-grown talent would stay in Scotland and that students from abroad that currently 
study at the best universities in Europe might actually decide to stay here when they complete their studies.

Both these factors would be of great benefit to us all.

Andrew SR Gordon

Craiglockhart View

Edinburgh