Letters: ‘Bad things happen’ to Brian’s polemic

In the very same paragraph in which he calls for “forensic and evidence-based” arguments around the referendum, he makes the sweeping, evidence-free assertion that “bad things happen disproportionately to small economies”.

In an attempt to test his hypothesis, I sought hard evidence – the most appropriate being, arguably, a ranking of GDP-per-person on a purchasing power parity basis (derived from the CIA World Factbook 2011).

Given Mr Wilson’s confidence, I was surprised to find that every single one of the global top ten were, in fact, small countries.

Not only that, but many of those small economies much-derided for having had many “bad things happen to them” recently – including Ireland and Iceland – were well above the UK in terms of spending power per person.

In a desire (unlike Mr Wilson) to avoid making sweeping claims, I do not believe this proves Scotland would be better off independent. But it does demonstrate that – in an economic argument based on evidence rather than fear – the truth might not suit Mr Wilson.

C Hegarty

Glenorchy Road

North Berwick

Brian Wilson’s preferred argument for the Union is that “working people in Scotland will always have more in common with their counterparts in Newcastle and Liverpool than with the Mathewsons, Souters and Murdochs on whose endorsement nationalism depends under the phoney banner of shared Scottishness”.

What alternative to independence, though, does Mr Wilson offer? His track record of opposition to devolution, presumably on the same grounds of class solidarity, is well enough known.

But what has opposition to devolution and independence delivered for the working people of Scotland? They can say, on the other hand, that in a number of significant areas devolution has provided a degree of insulation from the free-market dogmatism being visited upon their counterparts in Newcastle and Liverpool.

Independence would free Scotland from that kind of government for the indefinite future. Mr Wilson should accept that his brand of class-based politics has signally failed to deliver for many of the people of Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle.

Not least, he implicitly accepts we must put up with periods of Tory rule so that his party can have its turn at Westminster before again delivering us into the hands of the Tories when Labour is ejected from office.

One of the besetting problems with the Westminster style of politics is that it has been arguably the purest example of class-based politics in Europe, if not the world.

That style of politics has for decades reduced too many areas of policy to political footballs between Left and Right – the NHS, education, economic and transport policy to name a few.

Then New Labour came along and told us that we had to accept the free market and widening inequality and led us down the deregulated road to financial disaster. Oh well, maybe next time it will be different…

Why should people in Scotland continue to accept living under an antiquated Westminster system which has proved to be so resistant to reform and failed to deliver on its promises so often?

If working people in Scotland have the opportunity to end the prospect of Tory rule here and grasp the prospect of a transformed future, why would that seem a bad thing to them?

A possible consequence of independence Mr Wilson might like is that it could deliver a sufficient shock to the Westminster system to precipitate serious reform and provide the people of Liverpool and Newcastle with the prospect of a brighter future.

(ClLr) Alasdair Rankin (SNP)

City Chambers

Edinburgh

Can someone tell Peter Jones to stick to facts and not financial speculators’ fantasies (“A hard Spanish lesson for Scotland”, Perspective, 29 May).

Apparently financial speculators do not like Spain’s devolution arrangements. No doubt they don’t like the fact that in the semi-autonomous Basque country unemployment at 7.5 per cent is less than one third that of Spain as a whole. Doesn’t Mr Jones think that his article would have been improved if he had mentioned this fact?

Of course, speculators do not like devolution or democracy. It is easier for them to take down Spain or the euro if they ignore the fact that the Basque region has defied Spain’s problems and kept employment up.

Of course, these financial speculators are the same ones who gave Lehman Brothers a AAA-rating the day before it went bust.

I tend to favour democracy and even devolution before I’d trust bankers.

George Leslie

North Glassock

Fenwick

Among the letters (29 May) raising serious concerns regarding the Scottish Government’s uncertainty and back-tracking over the important issues regarding the situation that would exist should we vote to leave the UK, was a contribution by Alex Orr with which I must take issue.

Mr Orr’s opinion was that the UK’s woeful recent record in the Eurovision Song Contest is not down to musical quality, but to the fact that no-one likes the “UK”.

An independent Scotland, he tells us, would do much better.

He must know that in winning this competition, we would have to host it the following year, and, thereby suffer a heavy blow to our emerging and fragile economy, as the “honour” of hosting it always represents a huge financial loss. This is hardly encouragement for a Yes vote, and I hope readers will recognise this suggestion as nothing but anti-Scottish scaremongering.

Walter J Allan

Colinton Mains Drive

Edinburgh

noBODY can predict what the defence spending or monetary policies of the UK will be in ten years’ time.

Those who raise Ireland’s problems as a reason to oppose Scottish independence should note that the most recent IMF, World Bank and CIA measures of wealth per capita all rank Ireland and Iceland ahead of the UK.

How this relates to Scotland depends on the economic and social policies proposed by each of the political parties in the first post-independence Scottish general election but with more than £1.5 trillion of oil and gas reserves there is no reason why Scotland can’t be one of the richest nations on the planet.

The crucial point is that we in Scotland will make future democratic choices on the monarchy, nuclear weapons, going to war, or the euro, for ourselves, hopefully by the use of more referenda whereby a simple majority will determine the result.

Fraser Grant

Warrender Park Road

Edinburgh