What do they mean by ‘independence’?

As you rightly say, the defence of its citizens is the primary responsibility of any government. So anyone might reasonably expect those who cry “Freedom!” to tell us all before they win independence, not after, how they propose to do that.

But before they inflict yet more bluster and bombast on us, it would be very useful if General Sir Richard Dannatt [now Lord Dannatt], outlined the kinds of severe difficulties that would have to be overcome, and then let’s see how the SNP responds, item by item.

On top of airily brushing aside the concerns of the former chief of the general staff, no less, El Presidente now tells us that the Scottish Affairs Committee has no right to open inquiries on the referendum. On the contrary, he has no right to tell Westminster what it can and cannot do.

He asserts that only MSPs (plus the Nationalist member of that committee) have any right to say or do anything about the referendum.

But considering he’ll get no awkward questions from his own squad at Holyrood, and he persistently avoids answering the opposition parties, it’s a good job that the Scottish Affairs Committee exists, and is exercising its right to ask the questions, and, indeed, invite us all to ask our own questions, in the hope of getting clear answers before we are finally allowed to vote.

At present I do not even know what Alex Salmond means by “independence”. We are told by leading Nationalists that it’s not what they meant in the 1970s, as things have changed since then. But considering the outpourings of the cybernats, it would seem they have not convinced at least some of their fellow members.

They are finding it much more fun nursing grievances about ancient history, or abusing those who disagree with them, than thinking about, well, anything much in a future Scotland.

Stand up for Scotland? More like dreaming in cloud cuckoo land.

Maria Fyfe

Former Labour MP

Ascot Avenue

Glasgow

It seems that blind detestation of Alex Salmond and the SNP clouds judgment, as is demonstrated by Andrew Gray (Letters, 20 October).

When Mr Gray claims the Scottish Parliament was created by the [Westminster] parliament whose democratically elected Scottish MPs Mr Salmond says have no mandate, he overlooks the fact that the mass of the Westminster votes were by English MPs, all also democratically elected.

Labour had a majority of 176, with barely 30 per cent of the vote, and was empowered to do exactly what it liked, without effective opposition.

Prior to that, we had the 1998 referendum. On the major constitutional change of setting up a Scottish Parliament, the claimed support was 75 per cent, but, as only 60 per cent voted, the true support was only 45 per cent.

A two-thirds majority requirement should have been applied. Furthermore, the referendum took place before we knew what we were voting for, or against – there should have been a green paper setting out the proposals. That explains the recent poll showing only 42 per cent now supports devolution, a loss of 7 per cent. The chickens are coming home to roost. The claim by former Scottish secretary George Robertson [now Lord Robertson] that devolution would kill independence stone dead has been confounded – a lesson in appeasement if ever there was one. The “settled will of the Scottish people” was no such thing – just look at the constitutional chaos that has ensued.

Furthermore, when the Westminster Labour government was unable to put through its students’ top-up fees legislation a few years ago, on account of English MPs’ opposition, it was able to brigade its MPs for Scottish constituencies through the lobby, a matter not of their concern.

I wonder if Mr Gray’s logical thinking extends to English Westminster MPs having a say in any referendum on independence, or on fiscal powers for Holyrood, and on its wording. And, given the top-up fees debacle, should it also include a question about devolution, or independence, for England.

I’m afraid that Mr Gray’s definition of democracy is poles apart from mine. The decision depends on a vote by the Scottish people – endless disputes about the vehicle are fatuous.

Douglas R Mayer

Thomson Crescent

Currie

I am at a loss to understand why Alexander McKay argues that voters were confused by “Alex Salmond for First Minister” printed on ballot papers (Letters, 20 October). It seemed perfectly straightforward to me, and as I wanted Alex Salmond for First Minister, I voted accordingly.

The people of Scotland will not be fazed by more than one question on the referendum ballot paper, and it is insulting to suggest so. They can be trusted to weigh up the issues, think with their heads and their hearts, and decide for themselves.

Ruth Marr

Grampian Road

Stirling

Alison Halley (Letters, 19 October) asks: “Why should there be customs posts at the English Border? Vindictiveness on the part of the English?”

The answer is to secure the integrity of the UK border!

At present the UK Border Agency is responsible for monitoring those entering all parts of the UK, but if Scotland were to become independent would it follow the same immigration policy as the rest of the UK? The SNP has already suggested that it would not, in which case the UK government would be bound to establish border posts to monitor those entering England (or Northern Ireland) from Scotland.

Scotland, like the Republic of Ireland, would probably become part of the Common Travel Area, which would not require citizens to carry passports when travelling within the UK – but what about visitors to Scotland who want to travel on to England or immigrants who are qualified to work in Scotland but not the rest of the UK?

Peter Lewis

Greenhill Place

Edinburgh