Misleading SNP

Ian O Bayne (Letters, 13 September) is quite right in his criticism of Brian Wilson, whose bilious comments on Scottish indep­endence have entertained us for several decades.

It has always been a source of puzzlement to me that Wilson, Michael Kelly et al can argue so passionately for the independence of every country in the world except their own.

It is not simply their opposition to Scottish independence that intrigues me; after all, there are plenty of other Scots who share that opposition. It is the venom and bile with which their opposition is expressed that invariably sets them apart from others whose opposition to independence is expressed in more measured terms.

Where I disagree with Ian Bayne is in his appeal to Yes supporters that they should cease any discussion on the most appropriate currency for an independent Scotland until after the referendum.

It is only natural that those who believe Scotland should be independent and will vote accordingly next September should seek to ensure that appropriate policies are put in place to achieve independence.

We have been forced to watch with increasing dismay while the SNP and the Yes campaign present us with a series of policies to be set in place in the event of a Yes vote, some of which are the very antithesis of independence. If they were presented as a short-term measure, to carry us through the interim period between the vote in 2014 and the first Holyrood elections in 2016, which will see the election of the first Scottish Government of an independent nation/state, some of them might even be acceptable in the knowledge that, in all likelihood, they would be changed.

Unfortunately they are presented, quite dishonestly, as having no adverse effect on the sovereignty of an “independent” Scotland. The sterling currency union is one such policy and to present this as having no likely impact on Scotland’s ability to control its economy is an insult to our intelligence.

To then argue, as the SNP and the Yes campaign do, that having our economy controlled from London still means we are independent, renders the word meaningless. I know of no economist on either side of the deb­ate who agrees with the SNP’s interpretation of the likely impact on Scotland of the currency union. It is the SNP’s determination to continue to defend the indefensible that is undermining the case for independence.

Jim Fairlie

Heathcote Road

Crieff