ONE independent economic analyst after another has warned about the economic consequences of the SNP's policy of fiscal autonomy yet support for the nationalists continues its inexorable rise.

Surely this suggests that the referendum has indeed been a game-changer in terms of public opinion and that it has unleashed a surge of pure nationalism.

The reaction of this very substantial section of the people can only be explained in one of two ways. Perhaps they do not care too much about material prosperity, at least compared to national sovereignty. This could be seen as principled and praiseworthy, but it certainly is not the line being promoted by SNP politicians.

The alternative, to me much more worrying, scenario, is that they just do not believe the warnings and are uncritically accepting the arguments of nationalist politicians because to do anything else is "talking Scotland down". Healthy cynicism seems to have been abandoned when applied to the pronouncements of the Scottish Government. This strikes me as dangerous, intellectually flawed, and very un-Scottish.

Joan Mitchell,

Bagbie, Carsluith, Newton Stewart.

GEORGE Orwell described nationalism as power-hunger tempered by self-deception. The First Minister's position on full fiscal autonomy shows that he was spot on.

Murray Mathieson,

24 Harling Drive, Troon.

DAVID Stubley (Letters, April 15l) is rather wide of the mark when he suggests the pre-referendum debate did not polarise public opinion. The fact is the referendum was divisive and the threat of its re-emergence is, among other things, sufficient warrant to make some voters consider their options, including tactical voting.

Furthermore, pre-referendum discourse is giving way to some sobering economic truths. For example, Scotland may own the oil but the market sets the price with the resultant effect upon the economy. Factor in the average family's lack of reasonable discretionary disposable income and one might appreciate why tactical voting now appears to be an option to those previously of a committed political persuasion.

Ian F Mackay,

5 Smillie Place, Kilmarnock.

NIALL McKenzie (Letters, April 15) is not comparing like with like in coming to the conclusion he does in relation to the parallels of Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

The SNP would not be supporting a majority party in a devolved government as Plaid Cymru have done. Given that there is no possibility of their forming a UK government, the SNP's only possibility of influencing UK Government policy is to support whichever party they choose, in this case Labour, and to work with other minority parties (what a refreshing change) to endeavour to shape UK Government policies and produce the best outcome, not just for Scotland, but for the UK as a whole.

Like David Torrance ("Why nationalism is not the same in Scotland and Wales", The Herald, April 13), he suggests that having this influence could back fire but this is a cynical view suggesting that the SNP should only enter into an agreement that gains them political advantage. I would suggest, however idealistic it might sound, that it is the SNP's duty to step up to the plate to ensure that no more of these disastrous austerity policies are imposed on the UK regardless of the political consequences.

Yes it is true that if the opinion polls are correct the electorate of Scotland may reject the Labour Party and "austerity lite" on May 7 but that could also be seen as a positive vote for a more equitable solution to the economic problems facing us.

Perhaps the best thing that could have happened to the SNP is Labour's rejection of a formal coalition. In the longer term this could have spelt disaster for the SNP; pace the poisoned chalice that was handed to the Liberal Democrats.

To support on an issue by issue basis gives the SNP an opportunity to keep their distance from a potential minority Labour Government and maintain its political integrity.

However, it needs to use its influence wisely to maintain support in the longer term.

William Thomson,

25 Lithgow Place, Denny.

BY publicly over-riding the "wisdom" of Mr Murphy on the austerity issue ("Murphy at odds with UK Labour over cuts", The Herald, April 14), and offering him no support whatsoever, UK Labour have not only given up on him, but have evidently done so to encourage more voters to back the SNP. It's now absolutely clear to them, at this stage in the game, that they need the largest possible number of SNP seats at Westminster in order to break the increasingly likely Tory/Labour deadlock in favour of Labour. This is worth more to them than the very few Labour seats they are likely to get from Scotland.

The remaining rump of Scottish Labour supporters should wake up and see this for what it is - UK Labour have finally and totally sacrificed their Scottish Labour branch office for the sake of grabbing more Tory-style power.

Dennis White,

4 Vere Road, Blackwood, South Lanarkshire.

WILLIAM Scott (Letters, April 13) criticises the SNP for their defence option of two frigates for Scotland, but if he cares to look out of his window any Wednesday he will see the total assets of the Royal Navy's Scottish surface fleet: two minehunters fighting their Wednesday War in Rothesay Bay. Having served in small RN ships, I think the odds are with the attacking aircraft, for unlike frigates, minehunters have no surface-to-air missile defence systems and have to rely on good gun aiming. So two missile hits from the aircraft, one per ship, would wipe out the RN's surface fleet presence in Scotland.

George McKenzie,

Rubha nan Gall, 48 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay.

DANIEL Gardner (Letters, April 13) calculated £1 per week per head over 30 years to be the cost of Trident. Alternatively, a family of four, plus two grandparents, could buy a new car.

Barry K Wilson,

15/8 Forbes Place, Paisley.

HOW refreshing to read David J Crawford's letter (April 13) regarding the desperate need for a different economic system. Tinkering with the current system (a system which has failed with depressing historic regularity) is all that is offered by the main party leaders in Westminster.

Meaningless rhetoric and a few financial crumbs are thrown at groups they think will win them the most votes is the most we are offered. None is brave enough to look outside the party box (however outdated), to search for an economic infrastructure based on humanistic objectives. Rather we have constant tinkering with a system that has failed repeatedly and disastrously, worldwide. None seems to have the courage to tap the huge resource of keen public desire to create a better social structure.

That this resource exists was amply demonstrated during the referendum in Scotland - a surge of optimism and altruism swept the nation, stimulated by the philosophy in publications in such as Scotland's Future, the Common Weal and publications by economists like Will Hutton.

Greedy short-term profit objectives are beneficial to the powerful few who fear higher taxation, and control of banks, but does nothing to create a meaningful, stable and prosperous society. There are many who want change and are willing to be involved - and are ashamed to live in a wealthy country where food banks are increasing throughout the country on a daily basis and the disabled are disadvantaged.

Leadership with zeal and imagination and courage are sadly lacking in Westminster.

J McCall,

The Stables, Kennishead Road, Glasgow.