IT is sad to say that some who would refer to themselves as “Scots” appear proud of the fact that under the current constitutional arrangements Scotland seems, at least on a superficial level, to be “subsidised” by the rest of the UK. Of course, not only is this assessment distorted because Wales, Northern Ireland and the North of England are apparently more heavily “dependent” on the “largesse” of “Londoners”, but because only tax revenues directly attributable to Scotland are included in Scottish revenues raised.

Meanwhile, non-directly attributable “expenditures”, such as defence, are pro-rated by Westminster. Of course, the deliberately conjured “smoke and mirrors” hide the slanted workings of the UK economy which leverages resources from outside of the South East of England to maximize the financial growth of London.

READ MORE: GERS: New figures underline the case for independence, Kate Forbes says

Scotland was effectively in “surplus” for most of the last four decades, but not only was no “oil wealth fund” created for the benefit of future generations, Scotland did not even obtain close to a population proportion of the massive infrastructure spending in and around London.

This is an economically debilitating relative predicament which is set to continue for the foreseeable future (eg HS2). The people of Scotland are just as capable as those of our southern neighbour, but we can only prosper in accordance with our collective talents when we can invest all our resources in our own country.

Stan Grodynski

Longniddry, East Lothian

“FORBES revealed she would not be publishing an alternative set of figures [to GERS] showing what the situation would be under independence.” [Kate Forbes says GERS figures show Scotland in UK is ‘financially unsustainable’, August 27] Why not? This is something the Scottish Government should be doing to explain to the population why an independent Scotland would be wealthier outside the UK than remaining trapped inside.

She could make it clear that because Scotland’s budget is controlled by London, London can simply declare that it is spending billions outside Scotland and then add them to Scotland’s accounts.

She and the Scottish Government could reveal that GERS only shows income in Scotland, which means tax paid on Scottish income that is recorded outside Scotland, like rents paid to English landlords, is not included. Nor included is interest paid on Scottish loans, which is almost always taxed in England.

GERS was designed to make Scotland look poorer than the UK.

READ MORE: Michael Fry: No other nation would tolerate Scotland's place in GERS figures

And most Scots are not aware that Scotland is forced to pay to service a population share of the UK’s burgeoning debt, the Public Sector Debt Interest (PSDI).

This line in GERS has added £3.241 billion per year to the cost of running Scotland. This amounts to £126bn over the last 39 years of interest on debts that Scotland didn’t generate nor benefit from.

Without that enormous drain, Scotland’s finances would be in surplus. Upon becoming independent, Scotland will inherit none of the UK national debt, something Westminster has conceded.

Ms Forbes should ridicule what GERS asks us to swallow whole, that Scotland, with just 8.2% of the UK population, is responsible for between 54-60% of the UK deficit last year.

GERS is absurd but the Scottish Government needs to vigorously make the financial case, a case that exists, for our independence. That could start with producing a set of accounts showing how much wealthier we would be outside the UK.

Leah Gunn Barrett

Edinburgh

TO have maximum control over its economy an independent Scotland must have its own bank and its own currency. No argument.

That however is not the political argument.

What we face in this the situation is that most people don’t understand at all what currency is and what it does. The issue therefore is easily conscripted into the project fear we will undoubtedly face as we prepare for the final push for independence.

Since the formation of the United Nations 75 years ago the best part of 100 countries have achieved independence. Not one of them missed a step on the “currency issue”. They were all aware they could adopt the option that suited them best from a very wide choice and were confident that they could manage the issue. Just like all the other countries.

So the “currency issue” is in fact the most successful of the Unionist scaremongering tactics and part of the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” legend that we are now seeing being ramped up again. Scotland’s viability is the argument we have to win. When we win that with easily understood comparisons to the economies of other similarly sized countries and their variety of currencies, the subsequent confidence removes the worry about our currency.

READ MORE: GERS figures lead to incorrect threats of austerity in indy Scotland

The political argument we have to address of an immediate nature is the worry of the lady in the supermarket or the bloke having a pint that, when they vote for independence on the Thursday, the ten pounds in their purse or pocket will still be ten pounds on the Friday morning.

So the answer to the “currency question” is that an independent Scottish government will, like any other country, choose the currency option that suits us best (which of course is our own currency) and move sensibly to that at the appropriate time. Meanwhile your money is safe.

In the meantime, with the benefit of modern technology I really don’t understand why I can’t pay for stuff out of my account by an online transfer into the currency it is being sold in.

David McEwan Hill

Sandbank