IS there some sort of conspiracy in the mainstream media not to properly address the wealth gap? Instead of the usual divide-and-rule agenda, pitting lower-paid private-sector workers against their counterparts in the public sector, why aren’t the media concentrating on the glaringly obvious, those rich and powerful in society who have been left untouched since the “milk snatcher” came to power in 1979?

This issue is more urgent than ever. We already have widespread poverty at the same time as many who have more money than they know what to do with. We had millionaires in the 1970s but I can’t recall food banks, starving kids, widespread homelessness, massive personal debt and the deep poverty prevalent nowadays.

On a general basis, working men and women, after a hard week’s toil, could pay the rent (most likely for their council house), the bills, feed their whole family, maybe have a modest car and enough left over to socialise in pubs, etc at the weekend plus a summer holiday.

Then, in May 1975 something earth-shattering happened. Thatcher won the UK General Election.

From then, until now, the rich and powerful throughout the UK have become – I’ll give you three guesses – yes, much, much more rich and powerful. Many of the descendants of those working-class people of the 1970s now have insecure jobs on the minimum wage, competing with others in self-employed/freelance work that doesn’t provide enough for them to pay all their bills, or are unemployed on Universal Credit. Also all those that are disabled, unable to work for various health reasons or on the basic state pension. This amounts to a massive chunk of the population.

Why therefore do I, as someone who is a bit of a geek for Channel 4 News, Newsnight and other reasonable news programmes, very rarely hear the argument that for sheer fairness alone, it’s been high time for decades, to tax the rich and powerful significantly more to help those less fortunate than them? There seems to be some sort of conspiracy not to address this issue.

It’s very significant today as the Chancellor has announced he wants to freeze public-sector pay except for health workers, to help pay for the massive deficit caused by expenditure fighting coronavirus.

What happened to those with the broadest shoulders helping out?

This situation is downright obscene and immoral. Whatever your political persuasion, I’m imploring someone out there with better techy skills than me and knowledge of the matter to start an online petition to push for some sort of wealth tax to address the sickening inequality in our society. Please help!

Ivor Telfer
Dalgety Bay, Fife

PLEASED to see that the false economic narratives flying about are being challenged (BBC’s political editor “Laying grounds for austerity,” November 26).

Ms Laura Kuenssberg is not alone. Referring to current public debt levels, the airways and TV channels abound with mentions of “scary numbers”, “how are we going to pay?”, “when will taxes go up?” etc.

It’s time that the media recognise that there is an alternative way to respond. The established response, taxation and/or spending cuts is ill-founded.

Describing one myth about national debt, ie: “one way or another, we’re all on the hook”, Stephanie Kelton, who has sound economic credentials (unlike Ms Kuenssberg), counters “The national debt poses no financial burden whatsoever”. Alan Greenspan, hardly a financial radical, stated “There’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much as it wants and paying it to somebody”, ie: quantitative easing. The UK, being a currency issuer, can do likewise.

Could The National please do a feature article to explain the thoughts of Kelton and those such as Richard Murphy, who challenge the pervasive orthodoxy, and maybe encourage Douglas Fraser of BBC Scotland, or Andrew Wilson to respond. It’s time this debate was in the open. Such a discussion would have relevance to thoughts about the best currency options for an independent Scotland.

Roddie Macpherson
Avoch

EVER since the first campaign for a Scottish independence referendum, politicians and other self-appointed “experts” have adopted a very patronising view about economics in general and currency in particular.

Detailed debate about economic issues is deemed to be too complicated for the ordinary Scot, and discussion about the banking system and the sort of currency we should use in the new economy is ­definitely not a subject for open debate. The public can only be allowed to partake in debate on these issues after they have been filtered through the opinions of ­“experts”.

I studied economics and I have been puzzled about this for some time. Why is it, that independence-supporting ­politicians should adopted such a ­patronising ­attitude to this particularly important area of social organisation? This means that there has been very little open debate on this in the yes camp, particularly when it has been extensively exploited by the Unionist media on the other hand.

I still do not know the answer to this, but it is extremely damaging to the indy cause when the unionist media can publish the most outlandish lies about the economy, and there is no response from the SNP leadership it is just left to individuals like myself and others to challenge this nonsense. Why is this?

The only rational explanations I have had is that most people do not understand these issues and we do not want to get bogged down in detail because it does not help us on the doorstep, the general public is not really interested in this detail. Frankly, I do not accept this for one second. To be honest I think it is an excuse by politicians who do not themselves study these issues properly and do not want to engage in discussions which would expose their ignorance.

I know from the work I have done in the community that there is a huge demand among Yes supporters for information on this and I know that others who are doing similar work are finding the same.

However the Question in the James ­Kelly poll, published in the National on November 16 was an absolute revelation.

This to my knowledge is the only poll which has ever put a direct question on currency to the Scottish public. One might have expected that they would have been a bit cautious in their response, ­particularly in view of all the unchallenged Unionist propaganda on this in the media.

Not a bit of it, the people voted significantly for a Scottish currency, a Scottish central bank and to set this up as soon as practical. Indeed 59% of the total voted for this, and while 87% of the SNP voted for this, so did 50% of Labour voters and even 43% of Lib/Dems voted for this.

What this shows is that the Scottish people have seen through all the nonsense from the banks, they do not believe a word of it and they want Scotland to make a major change. Indeed it looks like a policy based on a new Scottish currency could be the SNP’s most popular policy if it is properly explained to the Scottish people

Andy Anderson
Saltcoats

THE situation in which we currently find ourselves, is not an example of the borrowing of money followed by a paying of it back. That is a misleading characterisation.

The profligate printing of cash money produces inflation – that is, a reduction in the face value of cash, but also implies an associated increase in the value of non-cash wealth. In that single phrase lies the answer to my question – Who suffers?

And an answer to another very relevant question – Who benefits?

Our current Chancellor of the Exchequer has targeted public sector workers, by applying a pay-freeze to them. But they are among the ones who are already suffering. I have little doubt that we will soon be required to pay more income tax and those of us who have pensions will be asked to tolerate a freeze or even a decline.

There are others, however, who hold wealth in non-cash terms. They have done that by having invested in physical commodities like gold and other minerals, by buying sources of future wealth (like wind farms) and by investing in real-estate, (which includes large houses in London, and deer forest estates in the Highlands of Scotland). All of these wealth-holding securities will now have risen or are rising in value to the extent by which the currency has been devalued. Mortgages are evaporating. However, people who have put cash aside either by putting it in a bank account or similar, or bought a policy from an insurance company or have just placed it under their mattress, they are the among those who will suffer in present circumstances.

Hugh Noble
Appin

I BELIEVE that Scotland will become an independent country very much more people friendly than its present state as a “vassal”of Westminster. The flabby assurances by the Conservative and Unionist Party “taking Scotland forward”, to a future entirely of Westminster’s choosing, is worthless .

After 313 years of Westminster ­government, and a mere 21 years of ­devolution (with Scotland’s finances under Westminster control) during which time Holyrood has had seven years of ­Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, two minority SNP Governments and five years only of SNP majority administration.

The (now officially named) Leader of England has the effrontery, dishonestly to translate his jaundiced opinion that devolution “North of the border” is really the fault of the SNP.

The fact is that given a “free vote”, even under the grotesque electoral ­process imposed upon Scotland’s people for the ­election of the devolved Government, and the mechanics of reserved matters effecting a relative modicum of SNP ­responsibility, the Conservative and ­Unionist Party has been rejected comprehensively. Scots have spoken four times since 1999,each time a resounding, ­eloquent NO to that Party.

Any disastrous feature of Scottish devolution has been occasioned by Westminster, where lies the principal cause of difficulties not only in Scotland, but also in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

How can it be otherwise when Scotland is under the control of a Party characterised by unsound judgement, procrastination, blundering, broken promises, hollow assurances, disavowed treaties international and domestic, and a notion of integrity peculiar solely to a playground bully heading a government composed of his sycophantic colleagues, and the disregard of the legitimate concerns of leaders of the devolved governments in vital matters eg, Brexit? Westminster has not, nor will it ever, served Scotland well.

Westminster is being exposed for what it really is , an anachronistic crumbling edifice suited more to 18th and 19th century empire building but unable and worse, unwilling to grasp the administrative necessities in Scotland`s case glaringly obvious. The case for our independence has been made. The next task is to bring a decision to a reality, and soon.

John Hamilton
Bearsden