Letters: The better informed wait to vote Yes

ALEXANDER McKay (Letters, 16 December) writes of those who would “rather the UK was not destroyed”. Well, it won’t be, as it seems that most in Scotland have affection for the monarchy, predicating that Elizabeth II would be Queen of an independent Scotland, thus maintaining the “United Kingdom”.

Much more interesting is, why a referendum on independence, lost in this parliament, would be any different from one lost in 2010, and would not lead to “preparing for the next” – the reason given by Mr McKay for “most who argued against the referendum in the past”.

Despite the current financial difficulties we find ourselves in, support for full control of the Scottish economy, independence and the SNP continues to rise and First Minister Salmond has an astonishing approval rating of 62 per cent.

Bill McLean

Rosemill Court

Dunfermline

I EXPECT Alexander McKay to disagree with my opinions.

On a point of fact, it is my impression that Quebec is currently more prosperous than Scotland (or the UK as a whole).

Whether that relative prosperity is in any way connected with past referendums I do not know.

David Stevenson

Blacket Place

Edinburgh

AS ONE of the increasing number who have been calling for intelligent debate prior to the referendum on independence I congratulate The Scotsman for the role it is playing in promoting the creation of an informed community of citizens (Arthur Midwinter and Joyce McMillan, 16 December).

Politicians and party members must also welcome such articles and respond appropriately, avoiding the temptation to resort to scorn and derision, a response which the SNP at all levels finds difficult to resist.

Such a knee-jerk reaction only demonstrates a serious underestimation of the intelligence of, and lack of respect for, the voters.

John Milne

Ardgowan Drive

Uddingston

I NOTED with some interest your editorial comments that it was “perverse” for the SNP to express opposition to what is seen as a further transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament through the Scotland Bill (16 December).

Given the proposed transfer of powers over income tax and the impact that this would have had on the budget and wider economy it would have been perverse for the SNP not to have resisted this.

The adverse economic consequences of the proposed funding model become all the more problematic because the bill fails to provide for the transfer of any additional economic levers to the Scottish Government, which it otherwise could use to improve the overall rate of economic growth, eg competence to improve competitiveness, corporation tax and labour market policies.

Rather than enhancing the capacity of the government to address these problems, it would be unwise to use the new power over income tax to try to influence the growth performance of the economy.

Income tax, when used in isolation from other taxes, is an outstandingly ineffective lever to affect the rate of economic growth.

There is no economic incentive to use the new tax, because to lower rates is likely to reduce revenues and spending to support the economy, and to raise them is to increase costs and wage demands.

One must seriously question the judgment of those who propose it, for at the very least it is an extremely expensive way in terms of lost economic performance to create a marginal increase in accountability and no increase in responsibility.

Alex Orr

Leamington Terrace

Edinburgh