This is not a Tories v independence vote

Derrick McClure (Letters, 1 October) asserts that “Alex Salmond is seeking a debate not as the leader of the independence movement”. Can he be serious?

He goes on to undermine the very case he is trying to support.

If we had a Labour First Minister at the moment then the referendum would not be taking place at all.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But, if it were, is Mr McClure seriously contending that a debate on independence should be between the Labour First Minister and the leader of whatever party happened to be in power in the UK?

It’s a nonsense and underlines the point made by Mr Cameron – Mr Salmond wishes to make this appear to be a choice between the Tories and independence and that is simply not the case.

The somewhat dubious claim that a vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP carefully omits the corollary – that a vote against separation and for a continuing union is certainly not a vote for the Tory Party. Mr McClure’s final point has merit. If there must be a debate it should be between the leaders of the respective campaigns who would hopefully represent the cross-party support to which he alludes. Incidentally, purely in terms of debating prowess, I would consider Mr Cameron to be considerably more feisty an opponent than Alistair Darling.

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh

Given their past form on the referendum issue, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish Alistair Darling from David Cameron regarding any TV debate with Alex Salmond.

There is some logic in the participants in the famous signing last year now facing one another. As Prime Minister, Mr Cameron had plenty to say about the disadvantages of independence, and he appeared to put every obstacle in the way as the process developed.

In refusing to take part, and in delegating Mr Darling in his place, Mr Cameron does the Better Together campaign no favours as the former was a senior member of the Labour government that ran the UK economy onto the rocks during its 13 years in power to 2010, thus providing a boost to the case for Scotland opting for something better.

Can we now assume that Mr Cameron will not, therefore, continue in the debate, off-stage?

Furthermore, Mr Darling committed a major misjudgment when he likened a Salmond/Cameron debate as being a Scottish/English encounter, when Mr Cameron is Prime Minister not of England, but of the UK.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Darling and, for that matter, his colleagues on Better Together, are obsessed with attacking Alex Salmond and the Nationalists. Of course, they can hardly do anything else as there is nothing available to discuss about what the alternative regime to independence would be – the unionist parties stood shoulder to shoulder on the Calman proposals as detailed in the Scotland Act 2012, but no sooner was the ink dry on that than they all broke ranks and are currently composing their own separate constitutional proposals.

Meantime, they could perhaps tell us what the advantage is, under Calman, of us taking responsibility for the 10p one half share of the standard rate of income tax and its £5 billion proceeds, which would come off the block grant which would continue to be subject to the Barnett squeeze of some £200 million a year.

And why, if we reduced that rate in order to grow the economy, the VAT and corporation tax proceeds from that should be shipped off to the UK Exchequer together with all other UK-based taxation?

But that would occur only if we vote No.

Douglas R Mayer

Thomson Crescent

Currie

It is not at all surprising that Alex Salmond wants us to concentrate on the unpopular decisions of the present UK government, and even to believe that we’re all doomed unless we vote Yes.

But this is not a vote in a general election, it is a vote on the entire future of Scotland for the rest of this century and beyond.

Neither he, David Cameron, nor anyone else can foresee how we will be placed in 30 years’ time, never mind 300, in which case I am no more inclined to vote Yes than to jump off a cliff without knowing what’s at the bottom.

A scientific approach to the gathering of factual, reliable information, as advocated by Peter Jones (Perspective, 1 October), is a great idea, and far more useful than any number of televised debates which just happen to have audiences with lots of Nationalists presenting themselves as undecided.

Maria Fyfe

Ascot Avenue Glasgow