Poor excuse for rejecting independence

Just when you thought the No campaign could not get any more farcical, following George Robertson’s assertion that Scottish independence could bring about the disintegration of the West’s defence, we have Secretary of State for International Development Justine Greening claiming that independence will cause suffering to the world’s poorest people (your report, 14 April).

I suppose supporters of independence can take comfort from such a show of abject desperation.

However, her contention does not bear even basic scrutiny as the Scottish Government plans to proportionately increase our spend on development aid and target it more effectively where the need is greatest. Clearly I have no truck with the Little Englander approach of Ukip, but it is a legitimate question to query the aid given by the UK to India, for example.

And to ask, if a country is spending billions on its armed forces, including its development of its nuclear capacity and spending significant sums on space exploration, could the millions given to that country on aid be better spent on a poorer, less developed country?

It couldn’t be anything to do with trade, I suppose?

Douglas Turner

Derby Street

Edinburgh

It looks like Justine Greening is challenging Lord Robertson in the Better Together campaign’s hyperbole championships.

It is quite absurd of her to suggest that any of the world’s poorest will suffer as a result of Scottish independence and it is quite insulting of her to suggest that any Scottish contribution to international aid has a “far more positive impact” by being made as part of the Union.

The white paper, Scotland’s Future, specifically states that in negotiating independence the Scottish Government will seek to ensure there is no disruption to existing UK aid programmes and intends to maintain and improve on UN targets for aid from developed countries.

There is no reason to doubt these statements.
And, of course, Justine Greening’s comments must be set in the context of her membership of a UK Government that is content to allow life to become more difficult for some of the most disadvantaged people in one of the most unequal states in the developed world and therefore her comments have more than a tinge of hypocrisy.

Andrew Parrott

Stuart Avenue

Perth

Justine Greening’s comment, that some of the world’s poorest people would suffer should Scotland become independent, is not only crass but highly inaccurate. In addition, it symbolises the mixed messages at the heart of the Better Together campaign.

One week an independent Scotland will have no impact in influencing matters on the global stage. The next it is Scotland that is holding back the “forces of darkness” and has the future of the world’s poorest people in its hands.

The UK comes behind many countries of Scotland’s size in the Centre for Development’s Commitment to Development Index, which ranks wealthy governments on how well they are living up to their potential to help poor countries.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg top the index, with the UK in eighth place after Ireland. Indeed, the UK has only just managed to achieve a target set more than 40 years ago of contributing 0.7 per cent of gross national income to overseas aid, achieved some time past by those nations mentioned earlier. This puts pay to the claim that biggest is best in this area and shows what an independent Scotland can aspire to.

Indeed, by releasing the economic potential of both Scotland and rUK through independence this will allow greater sums to be contributed to address the needs of the world’s poorest.

Alex Orr

Leamington Terrace

Edinburgh