I FEEL quite indebted to Mr C Kerr for his long letter (August 11), in large part for its careful and reasoned tone, both in fleshing out detailed responses to the questions I raised in my letter of August 6, but taking some issues further, and raising others.

Clearly ceding a degree of sovereignty to the EU if the Tory/Ukip/Brexit Party hard Brexit takes place, or working within existing EU constructs, allows many of the questions to be addressed as a matter of course, by a fully empowered Scottish Government, working predominantly to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

READ MORE: My answers to questions posed on future of rUK and indy Scotland

What Mr Kerr’s letter also answers is a question I did not raise, namely the question put by some of the better-off, higher demographic, educated and professional individuals who would normally vote Tory and yet consider themselves somewhat apolitical for doing so. “Why would ANYONE vote for Scottish independence?”. Well, so that a fully powered Scottish Government can work, relatively unencumbered, for the benefit mainly but not exclusively of all the people of Scotland.

Whilst I realise that this answer may not satisfy all so-called apolitical Tory voters, if taken in conjunction with Mr C Kerr’s carefully reasoned points perhaps their normal worry/fear index may just drop sufficiently for some to move their position sufficiently to allow them not to place their cross against No in indyref2.

As for the profit tax on corporate bodies, I could not agree more. Corporate taxation should largely reflect the location of the purchaser, and as such would probably mimic a background VAT+ process to some extent. I do, however, believe that this will have to be a unilateral process to deliverfor the people for Scotland in anything like an appropriate timescale. I would concede, however, that the tax rate set may well have to be artificially low to start with, and running in parallel with the existing corporation tax regime.

In respect of GM, the EU appears to be allowing a degree of subsidiarity to regions of the EU, especially in Ireland, so that small areas can be designated as GM-free, which Mr C Kerr correctly points out is somewhat untenable once the GM genie is out of the bottle. Being able to label a region “GM free” to boost trade and prices, for regions “demonstrably trying” to be “GM free”, is an EU flexibility important to Scotland and its agricultural products trade.

I would suggest that these day-job issues, and others like them, are the ones needing to be aired much more, in the more progressive parts of the media. Without such an airing the day-to-day issues can be used as a smokescreen, to the big issues of independence, by those who seek to subvert the will of the people of Scotland, by seeking the maintenance of a UK governance.

These bigger issues, like the “upgrading” of first-strike nuclear weapons, “sending people back” to the countries where the population are of similar race/creed/colour, and the demand to “take back” global insularity, are the issues that should only be addressed after YES2, by an independent fully powered Scottish Government, working with the Scottish Parliament, for the benefit of the people of Scotland.

Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow

I AM sure we all feel that the tide is turning; that we have a compelling case for independence and a strong group of people well able to articulate the benefits of independence. Where the Unionists still outflank us is in the tactics of voting.

I still feel that we lost the last referendum in the postal ballots. What we need is training for Yes groups in signing up voters. Where is this to come from?

Ian Richmond
Dumfries and Galloway