Stop talking of Scots as ‘subsidy junkies’

She is reported as claiming: “Scotland would be worse off than the rest of the UK by 2016-17 and would start under independence laden with a debt and debt interest we’d struggle to pay.”

In another report in the same issue of The Scotsman, we learn that according to HMRC’s own statistics, Scotland, with 8.4 per cent of the population of the UK, pays 9 per cent of the tax and has done so every year for the past 30 years.

In other words, not only is Scotland not subsidised by the rest of the UK, but it contributes more than our population share of taxation, despite suffering the economic policies of successive Tory and Labour governments for the past 30 years, which have ensured that Scotland’s economic growth has been 0.5 per cent lower than that of the rest of the UK in each year, for the same three decades.

Despite this abysmal record, Ms Davidson has the gall to appeal for English aid on the grounds that Scots will be unable to afford to pay back the debt created by the economic policies of successive Tory and Labour governments, over a period much longer than the past 30 years.

She persists, therefore, in portraying Scots as the “subsidy junkies” so beloved by the English popular media, notwithstanding the deliberate falsification of oil revenue figures by both Tory and Labour governments for more than 30 years.

Do unionists of Ms Davidson’s ilk have no self-respect or dignity?

How does it feel to believe that she and others in Scotland who share her opinions are living off the backs of the unemployed in Liverpool, the socially deprived in the north-east of England and the homeless in London?

Not only do they believe we are a collection of “something-for-nothing, subsidy junkies” but they would appear to believe that we should continue in that vein. It is hardly an appeal that will have the English – if they have any sense – flocking to her cause.

It is little wonder the Tories are still such a toxic brand in Scotland.

Jim Fairlie

Heathcote Road

Crieff

I applaud Mr Derrick McClure’s appeal for political maturity (Letters, 3 October). I am, therefore, reluctant to suggest that he misquoted my question (Letters, 2 October) wilfully. I did not ask whether I would expect the First Minister to support independence in a debate if we had a Labour government in Scotland “which supported independence”.

He has added the final phrase which completely misrepresents my point. Debating in favour of independence is not an inherent part of the role of a First Minister; an SNP First Minister may see it that way but a Labour or – wishful thinking – a Liberal Democrat one would not.

It is true that there are members of the Labour Party who support independence. It is equally true that as many as 32 per cent of SNP voters support union. It is not purely a party issue, as Mr McClure rightly says.

But he also rightly says that Mr Salmond does not see it that way. Hence his call for a debate with the leading Tory when, as he says in his letter to Mr Cameron, he knows that there is a lack of support for the Tory Party in Scotland.

It is not a question of Mr Cameron being “feart”. Both men have considerable political nous. The challenge to Mr Cameron is a cunning ploy which Mr Cameron sees through.

As to respect – Mr Cameron’s recent “pen pal” remarks are as distasteful as Mr Salmond’s recent “Lord Snooty” remarks. Not much sign of political maturity in either case.

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue

Edinburgh

Cameron disparages Salmond, calling him his new penfriend, and Salmond insults Cameron with “feart” and “butt out”, the language of the playground bully who knows, indeed is making sure, his challenge will not be accepted.

This is not how you approach someone with whom you hope to divide the household goods.

The No campaign has difficulty finding a credible leader as the main contenders are too associated with Westminster. The obvious choice would be the leader of the main No party in Scotland, Johann Lamont.

That they have taken Alistair Darling out of semi-retirement shows a lack of confidence here. Personalising the campaign thus attracts the Yes people who have a clear leader but they have the opposite problem.

Salmond has recently been announcing policies which take his colleagues by surprise and is tempted into glib remarks which do not stand much scrutiny and undermine his credibility.

Despite his sincerity he is just as likely to lose the campaign as to win it.

Everyone wants details and the full range of possibilities to be explored before the referendum, and this cheap abuse makes good headlines but doesn’t get us anywhere. Who remembers the names of the negotiators in 1707 after all?

William Aitken

Easter Warriston

Edinburgh