Readers’ letters: SNP's latest indy claims not economically viable

They claim every family in Scotland will be £10,200 better off after independence. The fact is that it is economically impossible for Scotland to become independent because our deficit would be so large we would not be able to borrow in international markets. Without borrowing no economy can function. We know the annual tax income and we know the current spending which is £22 billion greater than the tax intake. That is as we are today. Post independence numerous factors make an already impossible situation immeasurably worse. Income would go down because of capital flight from Scotland along with many small high tech companies leaving the country. Military shipbuilding would cease and military bases close. Expenses would go up vastly. The State Pension would have to be paid by Scotland alone and not the UK Government as it is at present. The cost of an army airforce and navy would make a joke of any Scottish budget. The cost of overseas embassies and consulates would be crippling. If you then add in an 8.5 per cent pro rata share of the UK National Debt the whole idea of viable economic independence becomes risible. I am sure many in the SNP know all this but sadly succumb to the blind faith of their colleagues. Dr Richard Marsh, Strathdon

School scandal

Channel 4’s exclusive reporting into violence in schools found that Scotland is the worst affected area of the UK for pupil violence against teachers.

Learning about the behaviour of children of primary school age, some as young as five, made for harrowing viewing. Research found 490 serious incidents in Scottish schools resulting in teacher injury in the past 10 years, 91 in the year to March alone, three times the rate 10 years ago.

It is difficult to overstate the seriousness for Scotland’s future generations going into adulthood and joining mainstream society.

Whether behaviour is fuelled by violent computer games, TV dramas, films, social media or frustrations emanating from the Covid crisis is not clear. Children are getting away with it with one victim interviewed even stating perpetrators are being rewarded causing a cycle of violence by other children.

Should the blame fall on children, however, many of whom are at an age where their brain development is incapable of understanding the implications of their actions?

Parents must be held accountable and sanctioned for their child’s behaviour.

The Government has a huge responsibility to bring forward powers to ensure the cycle of violence is tackled. Teachers must be protected and respected and feel valued and supported, not have to leave the profession because of violence.

Neil Anderson, Edinburgh

Rachel’s pension

In the media there is a great deal of speculation about what will be in the Chancellor's budget speech in November. It could be about wealth, property, capital, business, a stealth tax, or it could be about pensions.

It almost certainly will include pensions, but only private sector pensions, not public sector pensions. Rachel Reeves says, “no one will touch my pension”, which means no one will touch public sector pensions, which are based on a final salary which is index linked, while most private sector pensions are money purchase.

Why does the chancellor target private sector pensions while leaving public sector pensions costing £40 billion per annum untouched?

Answers on a postcard please.

The Chancellor has to fill an expected black hole of around £22bn and everyone in the country is a potential target.

James Macintyre, Linlithgow

Lesson needed

Paul Beswick (letters 17 October) completely misses the impact of VAT on private schools.

This envy tax doesn’t affect the “affluent” but is a huge impact on those children with special needs and other parents who made personal sacrifices to ensure their children receive the education that the state does not provide.

If he actually believes the VAT collected will go towards education he must be unaware of the £40 billion black hole created by his government.

Lewis Finnie, Edinburgh

China spy case

For the greater part of the last century our security apparatus worked in the dark, leaving accounts of its activities to the imagination of novelists and going to lengths to conceal the names of its Directors.

A trend then began to be somewhat more open: Directors were identified and allowed to make public statements on issues of the moment, but not in a way designed to challenge the policies or actions of the Government to which they were advisory.

So far so good, but I find it deeply disturbing that, in the context of the so-called China spy case, MI5 now seems to believe that it is entitled to advance a point of view that is critical of the actions of the present Government and its predecessor and the law of the land as determined by Parliament which have stood in the way of MI5’s apparent belief that it can have Messrs Berry and Cash condemned as spies without judicial process.

Sir Ken McCallum’s intervention on Thursday went way over the top, moving from advice to advocation of a political position on China, namely that it is an enemy, which he was entitled to advance in advice but not to peddle in public.

Meanwhile, the treatment of Messrs Berry and Cash can, in this hysterical atmosphere, best be described as outrageous.

We do not know the nature of the charges against them, they insist on their innocence, their trial has collapsed and yet the accused are viewed in political and media comment as guilty.

James Scott, Edinburgh

Louping III virus

Scotland is world famous for our sheep research. Think Dolly the sheep in 1996, the world’s first cloned animal, and now on display in the National Museum of Scotland.

This week the BBC reported that a farmer in Perthshire has lost 70 sheep to the tick borne Louping Ill virus.

Louping Ill is a historic sheep infection which is peculiar to Scotland. The sheep limp or “Loup” in old Scots, following a serious brain infection. The statistical accounts of 1795 described Louping Ill and in 1891 Sir Walter Scott’s Black Dwarf novel describes “louping sheep”.

Unfortunately, this serious virus which inflames the brain of sheep can also spread to farmers, vets and abattoir workers with 37 human cases, including deaths, reported in 90 years. The virus is spread from the infected sheep to humans by our common tick.

Many Scots will already know about Lyme disease which is also a disease spread by ticks from animals to humans. However, Louping Ill is caused by a virus and has no method of active treatment in contrast to Lyme disease which is treated with antibiotics.

A new Louping Ill vaccine for sheep is being developed by the Moredun Research foundation in the Pentland Hills with crowd funding and matched support from the Scottish Government.

As Sir Walter Scott continues to gaze down upon Princess Street with the Pentland Hills behind him, it is time to get behind the Louping Ill sheep vaccine project to protect the sheep and reduce the disease reservoir in flocks.

Most importantly we have a public duty to protect our farmers and vets who come into close contact with Ill sheep. The infected ticks on the sheep can then transfer the virus to the farmer.

Our Scots historic veterinary and human tick borne disease is needing a new prevention solution using the new science technologies of Edinburgh!

The Moredun farming research charity is open for public donations to develop the Louping Ill vaccine for sheep and thus protect humans from this tick borne disease.

Dr James Douglas, Fort William

Mobile cinemas

It’s been clear to me, for some time now, that vehicle designers are less focused upon the external look and safety features of new cars than ever before.

Their focus now is on how they can sell cars with the largest possible dashboard screens, some stretching over half the width of the interior and surely must be a distraction for drivers.

These screens and their displays have to be a potential cause of more accidents as eyes are diverted from the road ahead.

Manufacturers are increasing the size of dashboard screens, in a desperate rush to attract new customers, such that I’m expecting to see the first iMax cinema screen soon, so drivers can look above the windscreen too.

I don’t heed the argument that making onscreen information larger is safer, when actually it is only a means to providing more options for use. I observed one driver dictating answers to the emails he was reading onscreen while, on an adjacent area, he followed road map directions. Can this be right?

Why is it that anything dangling from one’s rear view mirror is deemed a distraction, but in-car cinema is a huge selling point?

Distractions while driving have been the cause of fatal crashes, and we all know using a mobile is illegal…though many choose to ignore the law unaware that, in the sudden event of emergency, they won’t hit the brakes until both hands are on the steering wheel to brace themselves. In that time how far have they travelled? I can’t give you the distance, but it can be the difference between life or death.

Gordon Y Watson, Edinburgh