SNP ‘conundrum’

Have your say

David Stevenson (Letters, 17 April) claims he is not confused on an independent Scotland’s possible relationship with the EU. He wants Scotland to be a member of the EU.

On the other hand, he would be “happy” if Scotland is not a member. I have to say I am confused, if he isn’t.

Such a position may be acceptable to a committed Yes voter. The rest of us, however, seek clarity on such fundamental issues rather than an apparently unconcerned “it’ll be all right on the night” approach.

Unsurprisingly, Mr Stevenson again ducks an even more important question posed by Jim Fairlie.

The same question was
asked by Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont yesterday (your report, 17 April). Why would an independent Scotland want a “currency union where a foreign country determines (its) monetary policy?”

Do Mr Stevenson and the SNP really want semi-independence? The truth, as Ms Lamont has said previously, is that the SNP referendum campaign is the biggest mis-selling scandal in history.

As the SNP attempts to dupe voters into believing it will retain the pound in a currency union, the chairman of the Yes campaign himself is content to watch on in silence with every intention of vigorously opposing this policy in the event of a Yes vote.

As for the SNP – does anybody really believe that Alex Salmond and his colleagues would be willing to cede control of the Scottish economy to a Westminster chancellor?

Isn’t control of the economic levers at the very heart of the independence message? Without it there is no independence and that is why I am convinced that on the issue of the pound the SNP would very quickly perform a U-turn with its usual agility.

Yes voters refuse to address this conundrum. But retaining the pound is of great concern to undecided voters.

They should therefore view with suspicion an SNP policy which, if put into effect, would deny the very independence they are campaigning for.

Colin Hamilton

Braid Hills Avenue