Letters: Dear Yes voter, your '˜straightforward facts' won't sway me to Scottish independence

After Yes voters were challenged to change the mind of a unionist in our letters pages, one Scotsman reader says he has not been convinced to back Scottish independence.

Mary Thomas (Letters, 13 October) presents “straightforward facts” to answer Doug Cowe’s basic questions on independence (Letters, 12 October). Few No voters will be convinced by them.

Ms Thomas claims the No vote in 2014 was built on a “tissue of lies” without identifying what those lies were. This looks a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. The Yes side were less than totally honest with their “once in a generation” promise, their claims of legal advice on EU entry and their assurance that after a No vote the Scottish NHS would be starved of funds/privatised.

Edinburgh: AUOB March for Independence. Picture: Neil Hanna

Worse, a “Yes” newspaper told families they would be £5,000 a year better off after a Yes vote. We now know from Alex Bell that not even the authors of the White Paper on independence believed that or much else contained within that paper – hardly an honest position.

The 2016 “mandate” for Indyref2 to which she refers was no such thing, as it relies on support from the Greens who reneged on a pre-election promise only to support another referendum if the Scottish people demanded one – they clearly do not.

Ms Thomas claims Scotland’s share of the UK national debt is somehow theoretical. In fact it is real, and in 2014 the SNP were committed to honouring it. One assumes they still are.

She also claims that at $85 per barrel oil revenues would bring in £6 billion a year to make a dent in the £13bn deficit.

You would think nationalists would have given up on predicting oil prices – besides, we were told in 2014 that oil was “just a bonus” so it can’t be relied on to bring down our deficit.

Ms Thomas goes on to say that Scotland could have a cheaper defence than at present. Not if the SNP stick by their commitment to Nato – they would insist a new member pays the full 2 per cent of GDP, just as we do at present, so there would be no savings there.

Keith Shortreed, Methlick