I FIND myself in agreement with many of your correspondents in their analysis of the current debate on independence. This, however, makes it all the more depressing still to read diatribes from Unionist supporters which parrot the same dubious arguments, half-truths and downright lies, while they seem incapable of even analysing, far less accepting, any evidence that patently and logically refutes them.

Yet again we have an argument based on the “too wee, too poor” attitude. These people persist in believing that our huge level of trade with England makes survival without it impossible. Have they not even given momentary consideration to the factors raised in the comments from Kareen Rennie and many others, which reveal just how falsely inflated these export figures are? Why do they not take all these false figures out of the equation and produce an accurate one?

And let them take into account one really important and substantial export which we do send to England – electricity.

We will now be exporting even more, from the renewable sources from which Westminster has withdrawn support. Will they refuse to accept this “export” from us the day we become independent? Who else will fill that gap on that day?

Moreover, we are still hearing ad infinitum how the GERS figures prove we could not survive without the UK. Perhaps the Unionists would do well to look back to the early 1920s, when separate, accurate annual accounts were issued regularly for each part of the UK, but were discontinued.

Why? Because they showed year by year that other parts of the UK, especially Scotland, were contributing more and more and getting back less and less.

Add the recorded fact that Ian Lang, as secretary of state for Scotland, suggested that introducing a system – ie GERS – which simply sliced off a proportion of the joint UK accounts, and calling the result “Scottish” would prevent the Scots from thinking about independence. It was the same rationale as in the McCrone report, downplaying the value of oil. So scared are the Unionists of independence that they have been fighting the next campaign since September 19, 2014, while we who voted Yes and lost were still accepting the result and hoping for the Vow and Smith proposals to be implemented as promised. Now it is clear that this did not happen – no “kind of federal system as close as possible to Home Rule”, no “broad shoulders protecting… from a downturn in oil”, no “guaranteed membership of the EU”, no control of immigration as proposed by Smith, fewer tax powers than Smith – the list goes on.

Now is the time for us to fight back. Let us take off the kid gloves of positivity that we wore last time to no avail, and expose the lies and distortions at every opportunity. Ask opponents to list all the things an independent Scotland would not pay for – new sewers for London, Hinkley Point, HS2, Westminster refurbishment – you can get at least a dozen in a couple of minutes.

Ask what the EU does/has done for Scotland and list some of those – the new roads paid for by Holyrood and the EU, new island ferry terminals, the recent grant reimbursing councils’ costs for flooding etc.

Point out things the EU was “cheated” on, eg the special funds granted for Scottish hill farmers, which were shared illegally among all UK farmers.

We have loads of solid arguments to hand. Let’s all try to muster them in our minds and be ready to use them.

If every committed reader of this paper converted one person, we could win our freedom. Perhaps this paper can help us with our lists, ammunition at the ready!
L McGregor
Falkirk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fearlessly awkward,  we need people like Tam Dalyell

LIKE most nationalists of my generation, I was usually more incensed than delighted at some of the positions taken by Tam Dalyell.

Most of the delight was at the time when he laid into Margaret Thatcher for the torpedoing of the Argentine battle cruiser the General Belgrano off the Falklands in 1982. The ship was outwith the British identified exclusion zone and sailing away from the Falklands when it was torpedoed with the loss of several hundred lives.

The Argentine response was to fire an Exocet missile at HMS Sheffield and destroy it. So the sad symphony of war goes, as often as not conducted from London. Perhaps Dalyell’s proudest accolade was to be told by Thatcher he was a leading member of the “awkward squad”.
Alan Clayton
Strachur, Argyll

THE death of Tam Dayell robs us all of a public figure who maintained a fearless devotion to his principles regardless of political gain. Even though many of us, including myself, disagreed fundamentally with him over the constitutional role of Scotland, we can all celebrate the qualities which he showed throughout his political life, ones in very short supply now, not least in his own party.

When others were mesmerised or intimidated by the statements to Parliament by Mrs Thatcher, Tam had the courage to dig out the truth and expose it. At this time when we have a Prime Minister intent on cozying up to President Trump and getting the worst possible result from Brexit, would that we could have a prophetic voice such as Tam’s from the opposition benches.
Iain Whyte
North Queensferry

I WAS delighted to see Pat Kane’s article (Don’t give up on our elders: we must fire them up for the fray instead, The National, January 21).

This was so timely as this week I attended the inaugural meeting of the Edinburgh and Lothians Group of Pensioners for Independence.

Recently, increasing numbers of enthusiastic older people from all over Scotland have joined, determined to educate ourselves in all matters of crucial interest to our age group – pensions, travel etc – and to spread the word to our contemporaries as a matter of urgency, should we be thrust into another independence referendum sooner than expected.

Anyone interested can contact us via pensionersforindependendence@gmail.com. The more the merrier!

Jean Anderson
Edinburgh

I HAVE bought The National since its first day and have never missed an issue. That says how highly I value your reporting of news. Maybe you could ask your readers if they could tell me what “affordable housing” means.

Can anyone say what amount of money is “affordable” to buy a house? What is affordable to one person is beyond the wildest dreams of another. Are these affordable houses available to rent? And at what cost? For someone on a zero-hours working agreement or someone on minimum wages, are these affordable houses really within their ability to rent or buy?
Marjorie Forrest
West Kilbride, Ayrshire

WHAT a convincing letter concerning Scotland’s business trade with England and the EU from David Crines. His analysis of the “Brexit versus independence” situation and how it will benefit Scotland, given an independent status for Scotland, was simple and yet invigorating. And it was comforting to see Alistair Carmichael put in his place yet again as a non-supportive Scot in Westminster.

My own view, simplistic as it might read, has always been that companies both north and south of the Border who trade in both directions will not stop trading.

They are businesses, not party political constituencies, and so will be far more interested in maintaining a profit rather than losing a customer because of any political affinity.

The scaremongering has started again by people who make claims without any substantive evidence to back them up, exactly like those during the first independence referendum period.

Scotland went on the defensive back then. This time we should be ignoring the same false claims by fighting back with the same kind of excellent evidence as provided yesterday by the likes of David Crines and Peter A Bell.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife