Letters / Independence the main objective
It is nothing extraordinary that, in the lead-up to elections, politicians suggest that things will get better when they are at the table. Things will improve for everyone — or so we are told. Politicians have a remarkable — almost reliable — ability to promise much and then fall short on delivery.
With regard to the current administration in Holyrood, it would probably be contentious for me to list all the perceived failures — there are too many, depending on your point of view. The question that always occurs to me is: are we being hoodwinked by all these promises? If you take the failures into account, you might conclude that we are. Of course, others would argue there have been successes.
However, one thing that does seem unclear is the position of the SNP on when they would pursue another referendum. There appears to have been a subtle change in messaging. Independence is still clearly the main objective, but the absence of detail or timing around a future referendum is noticeable — perhaps understandably so.
The difficulty has always been that we are never given a clear explanation of how an independent Scotland would fully pay its way. In the past, we have been offered reassurance that all would be well. Reassurance is plentiful; detail is less so. In reality, the risks could be significant.
Take one simple point. The UK currently has national debt in the region of £2.6 trillion. An independent Scotland would likely take on a population share of that debt — roughly 8 per cent — which equates to around £200–£210 billion.
Spread across Scotland’s taxpayers (approximately 2.5–2.7 million people), that represents a notional burden of roughly £75,000–£85,000 per taxpayer.
I’ll rest my case with that thought alone. Every vote for the SNP has the potential, however indirectly, to move us a step closer to a very uncertain financial position.
L Farmer
Burra
