AMONGST your coverage of what the position would now be had Scotland voted for independence, an impression has been given by some is that of an economic basket case, especially given the collapse of the price of oil (“Experts say it would have led to higher taxes or spending cuts”, The Herald, March 24).

This, along with what an independent Scottish deficit would be, is highly misleading.

As far as I am aware neither the Institute of Financial Services (IFS) nor the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), often quoted as some sort of definitive arbiters on the matter, has made any effort to provide reconstructed figures of what an independent Scottish fiscal position would be. They take its position as now, under the Union, and apply figures proportionately.

During the referendum campaign Scotland appointed several world leaders on the economy as unpaid advisers, among them Andrew Hughes Hallett and Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglist and Sir James Mirlees.

Professor Hughes Hallett showed just how misleading the economists of the IFS and OBR were when attributing debt, deficit and so forth to an independent Scotland.

To quote Prof Hughes Hallett (on the Royal Economic Society website): “To determine if Scotland would be better off or not, one has to reconstruct the national accounts to show how they would appear if Scotland were financially independent. This is because a number of revenue and spending transfers between Scotland and rUK would either cease to exist or be returned to the parent economy. Reallocating those spending and tax flows would change Scotland’s fiscal balances significantly in Scotland’s favour.

“This point is now acknowledged in relation to oil and gas revenues, and perhaps debt interest payments; but not with respect to the other transfers and subsidy reversals. In other words, most economists continue to use the national accounts as they are. Insofar as their projections show Scotland worse off, they are showing how the Scottish economy would look if the Union continued. That is to make a case for independence, not against it.”

On the deficit, Prof Hughes Hallett showed that the projected figures by most economists, who did not attempt reconstruction of an independent Scotland’s finances, were wildly inaccurate. He indicated that far from being in deficit, there would have been a modest surplus.

The subsequent crash in oil prices, while undesirable both to UK and Scottish economies, does not affect Prof Hughes Hallett’s basic premise as outlined above.

Until objective analysis is undertaken which takes into account all the factors which would be implicit in independence, the debate is at best misleading; at worst yet more propaganda.

Those who would spread doom and gloom also consistently take a position of Scotland having to accept a proportionate share of debt when leaving UK without it being entitled to its proportionate share of all assets. That is an indefensible position. If such a sharing of assets did not take place there would be no moral justification for Scotland to accept one penny of debt. This constant demeaning of Scotland's worth, real and potential, is degrading.

One might ask why does Denmark, with a similar population to Scotland, with less natural resources and with no oil or gas to call upon, manage to have a better standard of living than the UK?

Roger Graham, Inverkip.



WHILE an independent Scotland would have now been in its very infancy had the September 18, 2014 vote been for Yes and not No, much of the current derisive comment has been irrelevant and too much reminiscent of that misbegotten No Campaign monster Project Fear.

As economics featured strongly during the independence campaign and remains central in the derisive comment today (Letters, March 24), I suggest that whatever would have been an independent Scotland infancy situation would surely have not matched the desperation of the present UK one where a Westminster government has seen fit to empty the pockets of its disabled and most impoverished people in order to cope with its national debt balancing the books difficulties.

I cannot somehow see that Scotland, even by the gloomiest pessimistic opinions, would ever have succumbed to this kind of desperation.

Ian Johnstone, Peterhead.



SEVERAL of your correspondents have painted Durer-like visions of the supposed horror that would have been visited upon Scotland if March 24, 2016 had been independence day. It begs the question: if Scotland's current position within the UK means it is irretrievably weak and can't cope with even a modicum of self-governance, even within the Union, what has gone wrong?

Rather than revelling in such weakness surely everyone who cares about Scotland (Unionist or pro-independence) should be working towards remedying this state of affairs. If the UK is to survive longer term, then it will need to rest on something more viable than fear of the alternative.

Michael Rossi, Middlesex.



SO, if you ever actually doubted it, now we know... only the votes of the 45 per cent were ever going to count.

Less than 18 months after the referendum – despite Ms Sturgeon's assurance it was once in a generation – we have the First Minister announcing the launch of a new independence campaign in the summer ("Sturgeon launches bid for a mandate to lead", The Herald, March 24). No doubt using the taxes of the 55 per cent who voted No to persuade them to vote Yes.

We have Alex Salmond rehashing his discredited currency argument that an independent Scotland would use the pound. So what value the votes of the 55 per cent?

If Ms Sturgeon's assurance in 2014 has so clearly proved worthless, what reliance can we 55 percenters place on her assurances now that she will listen to our concerns?

It's very simple. The 55 per cent said No. It's not an issue of having concerns. It is an entire repudiation of a political concept.

That the SNP will win the Scottish general election seems beyond doubt. Given the SNP Government's increasingly obvious incompetence in its handling of health, education, agriculture, local authority funding and it's very worrying central political control of the police, that imminent election victory says very much more about the opposition, and particularly the level of disenchantment with Scottish Labour, than it does about the SNP.

Alasdair Sampson, East Ayrshire.



THE passing of the Scotland Bill into legislation should create valuable new potential for Scotland “Bill means Holyrood is set for exciting new era”, The Herald, March 23). But to make the most of the new powers it is critical that the SNP in both Holyrood and Westminster optimise the benefits to Scotland from the two parliaments, rather than viewing either as a forum for discord or for pursuing a nationalist agenda at the expense of cross party co-operation, dialogue and healthy debate. The record of late does not auger well.

Progressively over the course of this last term at Holyrood, the SNP has sought to impose its will in a way that has smothered the proper holding to account of the government’s plans and delivery. The committee system has become a parody of its intended purpose.

Equally, in Westminster, while the new contingent of SNP MPs have made their presence felt, this has not always been constructive. Finding excuses to stray into matters primarily effecting England and Wales, might seem like good political game playing, but it does nothing for the reputation of Scotland’s place in the UK. Though of course some do not care about that.

Hopefully the new powers for Scotland can be viewed in the next term of the Scottish Parliament as a basis for governing positively, rather than as a platform for yet more rounds of the blame game.

Keith Howell, Peeblesshire.