We need policy detail on what an independent Scotland would look like

If there is any coalition of the Yes voters needed then it is up to the various faction to coalesce. In 2014 this was never the case. The Yes movement was singular. Splinter groups were formed later. Since that fateful year, the Yes fraternity has disintegrated to the point of even reducing the SNP membership.

READ MORE: John Curtice: What the polls really mean for Nicola Sturgeon

Since then there has been substantive differences established, particularly as to when a referendum should take place. I have not heard of any real disparity coming from other groups mentioned by Alex Kerr, such as Women for Independence or even the Green Party, which is in government anyway.

My only personal gripe with the SNP is the lack of policy information as to what an independent Scotland would be like and contain, and being more beneficial for the population than the current situation we find ourselves in as a result of UK Government policies.

However, he is right about the March conference being the place to iron out the problems, such as within the SNP, and differences between the Yes groups.

READ MORE: SNP reject report 30,000 have quit party over Nicola Sturgeon gender reforms

Personally, I am of the opinion that a majority vote for an SNP (independence party) government is a vote registered for independence, as well as for the socialist government I’ve always voted for, albeit previously down south. I am also of the stronger opinion that Salvo should be a consideration as the means to an end. This is so obvious in its historical and legal context that ignore it would be ignoring Scotland’s history and place in the world.

Unfortunately, I cannot attend the conference, but I hope someone will be bold enough to raise the issue of Salvo. Membership of salvo.scot is growing into the thousands and so well worth the considered debate alongside all other debates where independence is concerned.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

I AM in Malta for a bit of R&R and reading a history of Malta when I came across this with respect to Malta’s then legislative assembly elections (cf Holyrood) in 1962: “Six parties contested the 1962 elections ... the two parties seeking independence from Westminster control won the majority of seats ... the Conservative Secretary of State for the Colonies (Duncan Sandys) agreed that since these parties has also secured the majority of the vote, then independence should be granted to Malta .... Malta gained its independence on the 21st of September 1964.” (Source: A Concise History of Malta by Carmel Cassar, pub 2000, Mireva Publications, p233.)

No questions of “What currency will Malta use?” or “How will pensions be paid after independence?” or any of the current guff perpetuated by the Westminster apologists, just 18 months of negotiations and Westminster’s 150 year hegemony of Malta was gone.

What-ho, Mr Jack!

Peter Thomson
Kirkcudbright
(Currently San Guilan, Malta)

I AM not an economist; but then neither are most ordinary folk like me. So I listened to Jeremy Hunt on Friday morning telling us on the TV news that Britain has been the fastest-growing economy in Europe in the last year. What he does not explain to non-economists like me is what measure of “growth” he is referring to.

READ MORE: UK avoids recession by narrowest margin but 'not out of woods yet'

Though retired now, I once was in business and understood that if I produced one widget in 2021 and produced two widgets in 2022 then I would have shown 100% increase in growth over one year. However if my competitor (who for the sake of argument, I’m going to call Germany), produced 100 widgets in 2021 and produced 110 widgets in 2022, my competitor, Germany would only have shown 10% growth.

Is my understanding of economics letting me down again? But if I’m right, does this not mean that Jeremy is trying to confuse us with false assertions? Why don’t the TV journalists ask the Chancellor about the parameters of his repeated claims about “growth”?

Keith MacLeod
Broxburn

TO the obvious delight of the Tories and Unionist opposition, the near hysterical reaction of some SNP members and office bearers to the Scottish Government’s delay in dualling the A9 is utterly ludicrous.

Sadly, given the tragedy of road deaths, Covid, Brexit, Ukraine and strikes, along with a cost-of-living crisis overseen by corrupt and incompetent UK governments, have drastically reduced the flow of cash to Holyrood.

However, let it be clear that the SNP-led Scottish Government’s commitment to complete the A9 dualling remains absolute. Holyrood Transport Secretary Jenny Gilruth announced that contracts are being re-tendered “with pace and urgency”.

In truth, however, against all other SNP policy considerations (including GRR) I believe unity of purpose is vital if we are to keep independence, climate change and human rights to the forefront.

Grant Frazer
Newtonmore

OH dear, there’s been a slip-up! I refer to Glenda Burns’s flawed research and erroneous description of me as an “SNP councillor” (Letters, Feb 13). I am not, and have never been, an SNP councillor and while promotion into such a lofty status might have some appeal, I resent being thus labelled. In fact, I consider this type of speculative guesswork irritating and would suggest that Glenda would be very concerned if I wrote a letter describing her as a Labour-supporting “plant” using the National letters page. I, of course, would not dream of making such an assertion based on “guesswork”

Malcolm Cordell
Dundee