The Courier

I don't agree with this line of argument. Scotland already has M.P's at Westminster who, if they so chose, could influence Government in ways beneficial to Scotland. They choose not to exercise such powers because their first priority is to toe party lines. I would be very careful about "social justice" issues. as we have seen over the past 20 years, social justice has resulted in decline of social behaviour and morality. Society needs rules to live by and the free-for-all policies that you favour (including the woeful "child-poverty" issue, simply increases the tolerance to unsocial behaviour and avoidance of responsibilities. A very good example in our lifetimes has been the failure of the communist ideals and the eagerness of those who were in fact oppressed by the communist "equality" ideologies, to grasp the opportunity to take responsibility for their lives and to prosper as a consequence.

No Derek, I just want Scotland and its peoples to prosper, and to see the horrendous poverty levels endemic in the country for many decades reduced to levels more comparable to our neighbours. Scotland's 59 MPs split between 4 Partys can never persuade the hundreds of Sth England MPs to vote against their own self interest. Neither can they get all Scotland's priorities dealt with expeditiously if dealt with at all. Devolution has helped in this respect. Independence will solve the problem altogether. You have a very right wing view that I simply don't agree with. Demonising those less fortunate is dangerous. Those who hold similar views to yours will still have a voice in an Independent Scotland. Thankfully, from my point of view, it is likely to be a far smaller voice than is heard in the UK as a whole.

But that's pure supposition, Stuart. I might as well claim that if the SNP had their way they'd place fire fighting resources in places like Dundee where the votes are rather than where the real fire risk is. Oh, wait a minute, they do that already! So much for social justice under the SNP!! Anyway, the point about taxation is clear - none of the parties at Holyrood have to backbone to raise taxes. Alex Salmond says income tax would be roughly at UK levels with independence, so it's got nothing to do with your fantasy claim about the Barnett formula, as of course the faild 'penny for Scotland' strategy demonstrated. But of course we'd also have numerous cuts in other taxes like fuel duty, APD and corporation tax, but increased spending on the likes the gold-plated welfare system you clearly desire, not to mentioned world-leading levels of aid to third world countries. Of course, the key to squaring the circle is borrowing powers to add to the huge debt burden that a separate Scotland would inherit. Which is what Gordon Brown did at the UK level, and look at the shambles that caused, hence the current austerity and all that. Look, Stuart, you can have the kind of spending programme that you want, but you also need Scandanavian taxation levels to finance it. But you and the SNP don't want the latter, and indeed you want the likes of corporation tax cuts to benefit people like the SNP's billionaire (personal) tax exile crony Jim McColl, who at the weekend was telling us via the Sunday papers how we should run our lives from Monaco, where he went because it's safer and because of the lifestyle, as well as for taxation purposes. So basically on tax and spending the SNP want to have their cake and eat it, and assuming they keep their promises it'll be financed on ballooning and dangerous levels of debt, a la Gordon Brown. Which is why I don't trust them. The rhetoric about social justice etc is easy, but the sums simply don't add up.

And again your point about Westminster democracy is even more relevant at the EU level, Stuart. If you say England dominates the UK then Scotland would be completely unseen in the likes of the (talking shop) Euro Parliament, and of course Alex Salmond wants to be "at the hear of" Europe. Replied to your other comment as well, but it's disappeared into moderation for who-knows-how-long.