Independence consequences

Like Bob Taylor (Letters, 24 August), I believe that the independence question is less crucial than the consequences; most voters have a pretty good idea of the principle on which they are voting. Perhaps to many supporters of independence, the details are immaterial and it is enough that Scotland will be free to run her own affairs and to make her own mistakes.

Mr Taylor suggests voters be given in advance a settled outcome agreed between Holyrood and Westminster so they will know what a Yes vote will mean. Surely we should also know the consequences of a No vote.

Pro-unionists consistently demand details of independence, but we know nothing of what is on offer should independence be rejected. We do know that some two-thirds of Scots wish more powers beyond the status quo, whether independence or something short of that.

The Prime Minister’s position is simple: vote No and I’ll give Scotland more devolved powers, but I won’t tell you what these extra powers will be until after you vote. This might be deemed the “jam tomorrow” option.

David Cameron has declared, somewhat naively, that the referendum will settle the independence question “once and for all”. If this is his wish, it would suggest that the day after a No vote, more powers for Scotland will not so much be put on the back burner as taken off the gas altogether.

The 2015 general election will provide a convenient excuse for delay, with subsequent endless debate, probably until long after Mr Cameron has handed over the keys to 10 Downing Street.

Alan R Irons

Woodrow Road

Glasgow