Letters to The National, August 6: We need a concerted indyref campaign or risk being mired in mud of devolution

Unless the SNP and the rest of the Yes movement re-present the case for independence to Scots voters soon and crucially, attend to the issues where Yes lost the argument last time, we will lose again.

Some 60 per cent of voters must endorse independence for victory. Reaching that threshold will take time and much work.

Incredibly, with almost every Westminster seat in SNP control, there is no current campaign for independence. The Westminster election was fought over devolved powers. The SNP argue that the Scotland Bill was not compliant with the Smith Commission which was, in any case inadequate. We have not ventured beyond devolution territory, so much so that the Westminster parliamentary group has been told to traipse round England being nice to everyone, rather than using the political strength of 56 MPs to campaign across Scotland ensuring that the massive difference in terms of real power between the Scotland Bill and independence is fully understood by every voter.

Without a concerted campaign for independence by the SNP and others in the years immediately ahead, we shall see political energy sapped and constitutional progress mired in the mud of devolution.

Who is afraid of a second independence referendum? It may seem, at times, like it’s the SNP leadership, but in reality it is the Unionists. A revived Yes campaign telling Scotland that no matter how it votes, it will get another Tory Government in 2020, means they will lose the next referendum. If the Unionists know that, why don’t the SNP?

It’s not enough to say: “It will be up to the Scottish people to decide if and when they want another referendum.” If the people are to give an opinion they must first be asked a question: will you support a party whose manifesto seeks a referendum mandate? Of course we can, as Gordon Wilson suggests, sensibly put aside a mandate for an “early” referendum, but not for one at a time of our choosing.

In the next four years, austerity will bite hard, as the Tories seeks to reshape the role of the state, at the expense of the poor. The inadequacy of devolution will become crystal clear.

A meaningful alternative to parliamentary posturing at Westminster must be offered. Should the SNP conference reject a call for a mandate at the time of our choosing, they will render Scotland powerless, unable to take advantage of changed circumstances, so that even if a majority for Yes was there for the taking, we couldn’t take it. It would be a catastrophic error. There is a job to be done now by the independence movement.

The politically educated who emerged from the referendum are still there, but they need to have their thirst for knowledge and political involvement met, through meetings, discussion groups and campaigning. Knowledge is power, and imparting knowledge of the Scottish economy will build and develop the Yes vote.

Unless we have a “floating” mandate, allowing us to choose when we have a referendum, political engagement will be an empty exercise; a strategic error would become a strategic blunder and the poorest would pay the heaviest price.

If the SNP and others believe that there is no salvation for Scotland except independence, this then is a time to have the courage of our convictions. To reject placing a mandate for independence and a referendum in the SNP manifesto for 2016 will give us four more years of a Union and four more years of futility. The people deserve better than that.

Jim Sillars Former SNP Deputy Leader Grange Loan, Edinburgh

Jim Sillars tells SNP: don’t shy away from campaigning for independence

THE Chancellor’s sell-off of the first tranche of UK Government shares in the Royal Bank of Scotland could not have been more poorly timed (Anger as RBS sale discount loses taxpayer £1.4bn, The National, August 5).

The predicted loss on the price paid for the stake when the bank was bailed out demonstrates that we, the taxpayer, have been ridiculously short-changed. This is especially troubling given the fact that six months ago the shares traded at more that 400p, whereas at their sale they were traded at 330p.

While the Chancellor aims to promote “financial stability” through this sale, it is difficult to see what sort of instability required it to be done so quickly, with the loss of £1 billion for a five per cent holding.

Osbourne must also justify why, given his current austerity agenda, he is able to so easily write off such a huge amount of money, equivalent to a twelfth of his proposed welfare cuts. With the sell-off set against a background of cuts driving hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, it is clear austerity is not being driven by necessity, but by a cruel and vindictive political philosophy.

Alex Orr
Edinburgh

THIS is a Government fixated by cost reductions, whatever their impact on social cohesion. They say we’re all in this together (all, that is, except those dratted immigrants and benefit scroungers). So let’s see if we can help our government.

There are 790 Lords x 5 days per week x £300 per day = £1,185,000 per week. Divide this by weekly £37 immigrant benefit and, hey presto, you could support 32,000 plus immigrants per week.

According to the Government’s own officials, immigrants contribute more than they take out.

Not only that but this move, at one stroke eliminating the House of Lords, would end the corrosive impact of patronage which ought to play no part in any democratic system. Over to you, Mr Cameron.

Richard S G Nicoll
Alexandria, West Dunbartonshire

AMID continued economic stagnation in Europe, with eurozone output still below the level of 2007, and decelerating growth in China and the so-called emerging markets, the US is sometimes held up as a “bright spot” in the global economy.

But more than six years since the official trough of the Great Recession in the second quarter of 2009, the US economy is anything but on the road to a recovery, as the latest data from the Commerce Department makes clear. It found that the economy had grown at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent in the second quarter of 2015 and revised its figures for the first quarter from a contraction of 0.2 per cent to an expansion of 0.6 percent.

The official theory behind the low interest rate regime was that it would boost investment, leading to economic expansion and recovery. In fact, the policy has led to the growth of parasitism on an unprecedented scale. Rather than being utilised for productive activity, cheap money has been used to finance various speculative activities, including share buy-backs and mergers and acquisitions.

It is not simply that the money provided by the Fed and other central banks around the world has not been used for productive activities, giving rise to slow growth and economic stagnation. It has had an even more destructive effect.

Companies that make new investments, but are considered by the market to have too high levels of capital expenditure, are penalised via their share price, marking them as potential targets for takeover and restructuring operations aimed at increasing the short-term return to investors.

This phenomenon has a profound historical significance. Capitalism has, in the past, destroyed vast sections of the productive forces, either through depression or war. But nothing like the present-day scale of speculative plunder has previously taken place – a fact that, in and of itself, points to the growing rot at the heart of the present economic order.

Furthermore, the colossal growth of financial speculation on the basis of a near-stagnant real economy has created the conditions for another financial crisis, the only question being what particular event or combination of events might set it off.

Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee

IN common with various national politicians, your contributors Keith Howell and Regina Erich (The National, August 3) want the 2014 referendum result to be a once-only exercise, never to be repeated. The telling reference, however, to “a result that everyone will respect” wilfully ignores the corruption of that result the next morning, by Cameron twisting the process into a means to disenfranchise Scots MPs.

Subsequently, we have seen just how sincere the rest of the notorious Vow was – I’m not sure how you sign a declaration with your fingers crossed, but Cameron et al managed it. Just how far that fooled the Scottish electorate was clearly demonstrated in the May election result – which Cameron will also now ignore. Clearly, the only way Scotland will ever achieve any real democratic representation is by breaking clear of Westminster.

Colin Stuart
Fife

TASMINA Ahmed-Sheikh and others have recently highlighted the great work being done by School Uniform Banks to support some of Scotland’s poorest families. The Scottish Government also provides low-income families with school uniform grants and free schools meals for all P1-3 children.

As Tasmina says this is heartwarming to see (Generosity show how mean the Tories are, The National, August 5). However, we risk excluding a group of children who don’t go to school. Education is compulsory, school is not. Many of Scotland’s home-educating families make great sacrifices to provide their children with food, clothes and equipment. Home educators are a group that are continually forgotten and the Tories seem determined to make home education the privilege of the rich. This is detrimental to the welfare of these children.

Morag Davidson
Livingston