‘No’ business leaders not representative

The No campaign has not made the case for staying in the UK at all; on the contrary it has simply sniped at the positive proposals of the Yes campaign.

It has failed to see or imagine the energy, drive and ingenuity of the Scottish people to make a go of a new regime, preferring to remain safe, tied to the slow, steady decline in the UK’s wealth, to number 22 in the world in terms of GDP per capita.

It does not see the opportunity to break free from this decline and set out on a path that is much more adventurous and rewarding to follow the paths of Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Singapore, all more successful small countries with higher wealth per capita than England (or the UK).

I am not an Alex Salmond or SNP fan, but I was saddened by the negative campaigning of the politicians, especially Better Together leader Alistair Darling and the Labour Party, who in my opinion have betrayed the interests of the Scottish people.

I am now even more saddened by the risk-averse  and conservative attitude of some of the business community who definitely do not reflect the whole business thinking, attitude and  analytic foresight that they try to portray.

There are plenty of businessmen like myself who believe Scotland would be better off as independent.

As an international businessman and someone who has lived and worked in the oil and gas and aerospace industries I do not subscribe to their views, since I believe the oil is not “running out” as they would have you believe; nine of the top ten wealthiest countries in the world are small countries with their own currency; and many smaller countries have prospered serving a global economy that has become easier to access rather than more difficult over time.

Ian Godden

Chairman

Glenmore Energy

The 130 signatories of “business letter” provide a good example of Tory manipulation at work. They write collectively, listing various businesses, but say they are doing it in a personal capacity.

That being the case, why are they not writing their own letters with no mention of business affiliations?

They claim to have studied “both sides of the argument”. This is only half true. I study both sides of a political argument, but I have a stand and need to know what the opposition says.

They try and make it sound as if they were neutrals reaching a rational conclusion when, in fact, they are as biased in their direction as I am in mine.

Take a few examples: Baxters has already contributed money to the unionist side, as have others, Tunnock’s and Grants included. Weir pumps had Lord Weir was a rampant Tory in Thatcher times.

Aggreko had Churchill’s grandson in charge and it seems to have recruited like-minded Tories. A goodly number of these people can be identified as Tory- connected. Others are interfering outsiders with, at best, a toehold in Scotland.

I also note some here are those who have done well out of Labour Party associations.

If these people feel that they are living among an inferior race, incompetent and not fit to rule itself, may I suggest that they pack up and move to China instead of spinning around in The Scotsman whining like a flock of constipated jet engines.

Thomas R Burgess

St Catherine’s Square

Perth

The letter from the heads of major companies expressing their concerns about the impact of independence on the Scottish economy is both welcome and timely.

The signatories represent companies whose combined market capitalisation far exceeds that of the Scottish Government’s budget.

The value of their business in terms of exports also exceeds the Scottish Government’s budget.

The number of employees in their companies in Scotland amounts to hundreds of thousands.

By contrast, Business for Scotland, which claims to represent “thousands” of businesses in Scotland, pales into insignificance on the three measures above.

If one looks closely at what industries Business of Scotland represents one finds that there is a distinct shortage of manufacturing companies, the true wealth creators.

Many are small service companies with few employees, including care homes and property-related companies.

Their owners, while they may be successful in their own small spheres, are not what one would call captains of industry, managing highly successful, blue chip, multi-national organisations which are household names.

So who do you believe and whose judgment do you trust? Business for Scotland will no doubt quote Sir George Mathewson and Professor Donald MacKay to add weight to its arguments.

The reports and pronouncements of SNP’s advisers and experts, whom they call up to support  their promises and assertions, is far outweighed by the arguments and analyses of eminent economists, lawyers, scientists, engineers, financial institutions which are highly respected both nationally and internationally, and the chief executives of blue chip companies, to list but a few.

I know who I believe and trust and that is why I will firmly reject independence on 18 September.

Stuart Smith

West Lennox Drive

Helensburgh

The unionist captains of Scottish industry are against independence as, according to them, it would result in the loss of Scottish jobs.

Russia has just lifted the embargo on the importation of Norwegian salmon.

However, hundreds of jobs in our most remote areas could be lost because Russia has banned Scottish salmon. This is the result of the tit-for-tat trade sanctions between the UK and Russia.

How odd that independence works so favourably for Norway.

Donald J MacLeod

Woodcroft Avenue

Bridge of Don