YOUNGER people are put off politics and political corruption.

They are to a large extent interested in sport, so why have we not heard much on the effect that a No vote will have on British sport after the independence referendum?

We have the GB Olympic teams, the British Grand Prix, even the British LongBow Society.

In football we have Berwick Rangers, from England, playing in Scotland and Cardiff and Swansea fro Wales playing in England.

So how long will it be after all the hyperbole that we are just one country all in it together before other nations with one vote in FIFA and UEFA wonder why we have four votes? Michel Platini stated that nothing would change whilst he is UEFA president, but for how long will that situation pertain? And everyone knows Fifa president Sepp Blatter is always open to persuasion on world soccer arrangements.

So a No vote could mean no more Tartan Army, pictured, brightening up dull wet days abroad. There could be just the one team at the World Cup and the European Championships. In rugby we could see the end of Flower of Scotland being roared at the Calcutta Cup; no more Six Nations, just one British team.

With a Yes vote the status quo remains for us.

Bill Campbell,

9 Laurey Drive, Stranraer.

SINCE I supported the setting up of a federal system of government for the UK in your columns on two occasions in 2012 the debate on independence has developed and broadened in scope. I believe, like many, that for Scotland to break away from the other three countries is not only undesirable but is also a waste of the many opportunities available to the UK in the future.

However, sadly the No campaign has failed to realise that there is a strong case for independence in the absence of any effort to address the fundamental problem that has faced the country for at least 150 years. During that time Westminster governments have allowed the focus on the south-east economy to become stronger year after year. Our country has become like France and Argentina, where the capitals attract all the wealth and initiatives. It is particularly obvious in infrastructure investment in and around London and the plan for HS2 exacerbates the situation by making it possible for people to reach London quicker. As some have suggested, it would be better to have high-speed connections between Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool and Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. In France Paris attracts people to the city through its TGV system connecting Lyon, Marseille and Bordeaux. However, it is almost impossible to travel from Bordeaux to Lyon, Beaune or Dijon by train and the road system is no better.

Governments in Westminster have pursued a policy of a series of minor changes to stave off legitimate claims for more local control hoping that the problem will go away. The proposal for independence is a strong case for dealing with this old problem in the absence of a response from Westminster. The story of devolving powers started in 1707 when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was established. Minor changes took place until a flurry of boards were set up in the 19th century, culminating in the creation of the Scottish Office in 1885. It took until 1926 for the minister in charge of the Scottish Office to be ranked alongside the other senior Cabinet ministers.

The recent history of devolution could be said to have started in 1967 with the election of Winnie Ewing to Westminster and this was followed in 1968 by Edward Heath's Declaration of Perth supporting some form of devolution for Scotland. For the next 10 years Westminster governments had small majorities, but in 1978, when the Labour Government relied on the SNP MPs for support, the Scotland Act 1978 was enacted and a referendum took place in 1979. Almost two decades passed before a second referendum was held in 1997, won by a 74% vote. The Scotland Act of 1998 set up the Scottish Parliament, which first met in 1999.

So the pace for constitutional change has accelerated in recent years to the stage that there is an even chance that Scotland will vote for independence. In my view this would be a wasted opportunity when united the UK could progress economically and in influence internationally if only it would solve the economic and constitutional problems it has fiddled with over the years. We need to give top priority to restoring and supporting our manufacturing abilities and match the growth of the south-east in other parts of the country by giving the regions the economic powers to develop their economies.

If the Yes vote fails this time the issue will return with even stronger support and little "give-aways" will not stem the tide and the attempts to save the UK will fail. History has shown that promises cannot always be delivered. In any case, who is going to be convinced by proposals such as devolving decisions on a 15p income tax. As Glaswegians, would say: "Come on..."

John J Blanche,

Delting, Boquhan, Balfron.

SPELL out the believed financial consequences of a vote for independence? State the perceived mutual benefits of retaining the Union? The response in both situations seems to be a propensity to be offended.

John Boss,

1 Ladyacre,

Kilwinning.

Unless the public meeting, advertised in large print for the "Undecideds", which Richard Mowbray attended had claimed to include speakers from Better Together, I fail to see why it should be considered a deception, but if Mr Mowbray was aware that the meeting was for the Undecideds, may I suggest that given his decided views on Scottish independence the deception was his, for attending the meeting in the first place?

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.