Sir, There is no doubt that Scotland has an ageing population. Correspondent Stuart Allan (letters, May 19) wrote suggesting that I’m trying “to frighten Scots into voting ‘no’.”
In fact, I suggested a viable solution to our dilemma. I suggested that existing pensioners should follow a policy of insisting that any future UK government should continue to pay our pensions.
In 1964, our mothers produced 104,000 babies. Last year (2013) Scottish births were 56,000. Eventually, those 56,000 are going to have to support pensioners born in the 1960s. A lot of those 1960s children have migrated out of Scotland. Even so, our pensioner proportion is larger and growing much faster than the UK.
We must find new tax revenues. One way would be to increase our taxes to, say, Norwegian levels. Basic income taxes are 28% in Norway and VAT is 25% on everything. Much higher than our current rates and not an acceptable solution. But Mr J C Brown (letters, May 24) claims UK taxpayers will agree to fund our pensioners, so he’ll vote “yes” with confidence.
Other “yes” voters, say there is yet another way. Scotland could increase both jobs and inward migration levels. The Yes argument is that an annual increase of 25,000 extra immigrants is do-able. While that annual inward migration would solve our pension problem, it would also need a massive investment in new housing and public services too.
The Yes campaign says that, free from the UK, we could borrow and invest to create the jobs those migrants would fill. Taxes the immigrants would pay would pay the pensions of Scotland’s growing army of pensioners.
There’s a small matter of the EU’s rules about borrowing that Greeks and Spaniards could tell us about.
So I agree with Mr Brown of Glenrothes: obliging Wales, Northern Ireland and England to pay our pensions is a neat idea. But will they agree? That is the question.
Andrew Dundas. 34 Ross Avenue, Perth.
No reason to find it offensive
Sir, Contrary to what George K McMillan (May 20) asserts and finds offensive, Allan MacDougall’s letter (May 17) does not, in my opinion, divide “those saying ‘no’ to independence into two extreme categories: rogues, and stick-in-the-muds.”
Mr MacDougall’s letter identifies these two groups and concentrates on the latter group but it does not follow that these two groups constitute the totality of the “no” supporters. Moreover, even if Mr McMillan had accurately interpreted Mr MacDougall’s letter, he has no good reason to find it offensive.
In such circumstances, he could criticise its analysis as crude and inaccurate (and I would agree) but to brand it offensive is to try to limit debate and discourage free speech at a time when it is particularly important.
As a frequent letter writer, Mr McMillan has often made uncomplimentary and denigrating statements about others. He should be one of the last people to find the letters you publish offensive.
Gordon Dilworth. 20 Baledmund Road, Moulin, Pitlochry.
Excellent series in The Courier
Sir, Well done The Courier for the excellent “What If” series last week, a thoroughly in-depth and impartial look at the consequences of independence. The item on electricity bills, something we all have to pay, was of particular interest. The Scottish Government’s pursuit of renewable energy targets by means of massive subsidies must inevitably mean more expensive energy in Scotland.
However, the assurance that the rest of the UK will buy that overpriced energy has a hollow ring considering the current Scottish Government supply contract is with EDF, a French company and also Europe’s largest generator of nuclear energy which presumably enables them to keep prices low. Never mind though, we can all save money by turning off a few lights and pulling on another sweater.
Mark Liddiard. North Mains, Strathallan, Auchterarder.
Just extreme Thatcherites
Sir, The victory of Ukip down south is yet another reason for voting yes in the referendum. Ukip have been helped by a wave of anti-immigration sentiment whipped up by downmarket tabloids in England.
The only subject Nigel Farage ever talks about is immigration. Ukip’s other policies are hidden.
They want to bring in an American-style health system where only those who can afford it get treatment. They support the imposition of a flat tax whereby millionaires pay the same as those on the minimum wage. Ukip want to restrict the right-to-strike, abolish maternity leave, environmental regulations and the Scottish Parliament.
They support austerity and have called for a further £77 billion in cuts over those already being enacted by the coalition.
Ukip are not a new phenomenon. They are extreme adherents of Thatcher’s ideology that so devastated Scotland in the past.
Alan Hinnrichs. 2 Gillespie Terrace, Dundee.
Figure doesn’t ring true
Sir, I was astonished to hear that the SNP have quoted the sum of £250 million to set up a new parliament (read new constitution and country) when it cost the Scottish taxpayer more than £400 million just to build one building (which, by the way, is now costing so much to maintain, they are thinking of starting again!)
Eva Muller-Allan. Todburn House, Earlsferry.