Furthermore, Mr Lewis’s conflation of two separate options for an independent Scotland’s use of the pound sterling is not helpful in furthering the understanding of the currency aspect of the independence debate.
All those with a sincere interest in the development of an objective debate would like to see the presentation of more “unspun facts” and the application of a greater degree of common sense by commentators, without the confusing accompaniment of further misinformation or the mindless repetition of irrelevant party political statements.
Perhaps if Mr Lewis spent less time listening to what he wants to hear and more time impartially assessing the pros and cons of all views in the independence debate, he might in future make more balanced and informed contributions from which we could all benefit.
It was intriguing to see unelected Conservative peer Lord Lang claim that Scottish independence could lead to a flight of jobs and investment from the nation.
I cast my mind back to 1997 when his fellow Tory and the then leader of his party, William Hague, said that devolution would leave Scots “disappointed, disillusioned and depressed, living in a high-tax ghetto”.
He also commented that he was convinced the Scottish Parliament would be a “flop”, with a future Tory administration seeking to abolish it due to its failures and, interestingly, that it would lead to “a flight of jobs and investment from the nation”.
This view was echoed by the then chairman of the Scottish Conservatives, Raymond Robertson, who warned that a devolved Scottish Parliament could cost Scots nearly £1,600 each in taxes over its first four-year term, impoverishing the nation and turning Scotland into a high-tax ghetto.
Lord Lang and his Tory colleagues are using many of the same tired old arguments deployed against devolution to oppose independence.
They were wrong then and they are wrong now.