WHILE I am fully supportive of the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), the RSA proposals are problematic in several ways (Blueprint for fund to help under-55s, The National, February 16).

First, we need to be clear that the RSA scheme doesn’t actually pretend to be for a full UBI. Recipients would get a one-off grant of £10,000 over two years, accompanied by doses of paternalistic advice.

The RSA’s arbitrary cut-off of 55 excludes a group of people who are frequently worst served by the current system. Applying for jobs when you are over 55 is never easy, and especially not for the many who have worn themselves out with four decades of physical labour. A real UBI has to be universal.

Like other universal services, such as health and education and, until recently, child benefit, a UBI goes to everyone, rich and poor. This is compensated for by progressive taxation. A recalibration of income tax should be an integral part of the UBI package. Although the RSA paper discusses the removal of the basic tax allowance, which would mean their grant only really benefitted low earners, it appears to make a virtue of not otherwise contributing towards the redistribution of income.

The RSA’s example scenarios all show how people could use the money in order to get better-paid employment. A properly funded UBI would also give people the freedom to do all those vital things that our current system doesn’t reward with financial remuneration, including caring for family and community, contributing to creative events, and playing an active part in local democracy. It should help enable a re-evaluation of what makes a good life and a good society.

No doubt the proposed fund would make a real difference to many households, but it shouldn’t be confused with UBI. Whether it would take us a step closer to a genuine UBI, as the RSA claim, or provide a distracting dead end, would depend on how and to what purpose it was implemented.

Sarah Glynn
Dundee

I FIND myself in total agreement with your letter-writer Victor Moncrieff (Letters, February 15) and his observations regarding the many anti-independence letters appearing in local newspapers.

My local area is Edinburgh and Midlothian, and I am aware of three or four names constantly appearing in the letters section. They are without exception obsessed with portraying the SNP and Scottish Government as bad and ineffective, and attempt to make unfavourable comparisons with the rest of the UK. I, too, have taken on the task of replying to as many as possible and I can confirm just how tiresome it can feel at times.

They are particularly good at the misuse of statistics, or failing to provide the full context from where they came. The debunking of this misinformation requires detailed examination of their sources and their re-presentation in a proper context. It is time-consuming but necessary in order to provide a more balanced picture.

I have found to my surprise that these local papers are quite good at publishing my efforts; in fact I would say that my success rate is greater with them than it is with The National. Much as it pleases me when The National prints one of my letters, I am conscious that it is probably a case of speaking to the already converted, a discussion bubble of the like-minded.

I would urge all your readers to at least consider taking on the Unionist propagandists that inhabit our letters pages, wherever they appear. Every letter that we get printed is a potential point scored against Unionism.

It may just resonate with readers of the local media; it may provide a telling condemnation of Scotland in Union falsehoods; it may sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of soft Nos, and start a process of conversion to supporting independence.

By all means keep on writing to The National, because any movement can only benefit and develop from internal debate and discussion. But please do not forget there is another front where we must take on our opponents. If you feel able and up for it, please consider how you can challenge the lies and deceit from our enemies in your local press. Time is hopefully running short to our next indyref and the battle has to be stepped up; so get onto your keyboards and start writing.

J F Davidson
Bonnyrigg

SINCE day one I’ve bought and read The National. Looking back, I don’t remember reading a more concise letter as Ms Lorna Campbell’s contribution (Long Letter, February 12). It was so factually put, and I’m sure all independent-minded will agree with it. Her words captured where we in Scotland are today in a nutshell. My thoughts entirely put into words, so well done Lorna, and to The National for printing it.

Robert Wilson
Rosewell, Midlothian

I KNOW I’ve been bending your ear about the sports pages and lack of women thereon, but on Wednesday we finally had more than one picture – the whole back page, in fact – but it was to write up the story of a woman failing (History repeats again for Elise, The National, February 14).

It’s really frustrating to be honest. I’m heartbroken for her, obviously, but how on earth are we going to encourage young women and girls into sport if they firstly never see women on the sports pages and when they do it’s because they didn’t achieve? Please can you make more effort.

Rosemary Hunter
Women for Independence