THE issue of health inequalities is both complex and sometimes confusing ("Babies born in Glasgow have UK's shortest life expectancy".

The Herald, April 17). Highly respected experts on the subject, like Sir Harry Burns, have spent a lifetime trying to explain the reasons behind the "health gap". His conclusions surrounding "the biology of poverty" are widely accepted as accurate. However, one thing remains as a constant: the root cause is poverty. Not just financial poverty, but also poverty of aspiration, poverty of educational attainment, poverty of meaningful employment, poverty of caring and supportive parenting, poverty of physical activity and healthy diet. Maybe we could agree to describe it as "a cocktail of poverty". Can this be defeated? Can this even be significantly reduced? One thing is for sure, it cannot be ignored.

As the referendum approaches, we must also ask ourselves if we could better tackle this scourge if Scotland was an independent nation. Well, other countries seem to do much better than us, especially our Scandinavian neighbours.

They seem to have a much more enlightened approach, based on far higher levels of government spending on reducing the health and wealth gaps. To do this in an independent Scotland, we would probably have to endure higher taxation levels (although not as high as the scaremongers would have you believe), but it would be a far better way to spend our taxes than on Trident, illegal wars, MPs' expenses and the House of Lords.

Inequalities in Scotland can be significantly reduced, but only if we, as an independent nation, have the power to determine where our hard-earned taxes are spent. Even if Alistair Carmichael cannot bring himself to say on the BBC debate from Kirkwall that he wants to see Scotland as successful as Norway, the rest of us would find it a very easy question to answer.

Alan Carroll,

24 The Quadrant,

Clarkston,

Glasgow.

I WAS amazed when reading your brief, and frankly depressing, article comparing life expectancies between Glasgow and Dorset that the sole political quotation was taken from a Labour MSP. That would be a spokesperson for the party which, except for about five years, has had an outright majority in the city council since 1952. One would have thought that such a record after almost six decades of power would occasion some soul-searching in Labour (which has just accepted the Coalition cap on benefits) rather than a demand that the Scottish Government (no mention of the Westminster Government) do something in the face of cuts to benefits. Nearly six decades of Labour control under Westminster's stewardship of benefits and the fight against poverty and Labour turns its guns on Holyrood while acquiescing in the benefits cap. I mis-spoke - I am not amazed, I am disgusted.

Professor William G Naphy,

1 Calsayseat Road,

Aberdeen.

IN response to my Agenda article ("Yes vote an act of solidarity with workers in Scotland and rest of UK", The Herald, April 15) Pauline Bryan (Letters, April 17) advocates a federal solution for the whole of the UK. In support she quotes the former leader of the Welsh Labour Party. The reality is that this is not an option in the referendum or the foreseeable future. Neither the Scottish nor UK Labour party is calling for such constitutional change, the Tories oppose it and while it is Liberal Democrat policy, it can't be high up their priorities or they would have put it in their coalition agreement with the Tories.

Our current infamous unwritten British constitutional fuddle is that, with a Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, we already have a loose form of federal­ism. There is a growing democratic deficit for the English regions which none of the parties is addressing.

In a federal parliament English representatives would be in a substantial majority and dictate foreign, defence and macro-economic policy. A major reason for my and many other Scots voting Yes is that we do not want our country to be involved in wars of aggression, have our foreign policy dictated by the United States or an economy based on greed not social justice.

An independent Scotland's relations with the rest of the UK would hopefully be co-operative with the establishment of a Council of the Islands or other similar body, as happens with the Nordic countries.

Bob Thomson,

Past chairman, Scottish Labour Party, Member, Labour for Independence,

741 Shields Road, Pollokshields, Glasgow.

ANDREW McKie, in his defence of the Union ("Why I believe it makes little sense to unravel the Union", The Herald, April 17), paints a picture of "an old jumper, not a perfect fit ... with the odd hole". The Union, far from being a beacon of western democracy, can barely conjure adequacy in its most impassioned defence. How can we celebrate mediocrity like this?

He goes on to ask: "But is it worth unravelling it because we might make something nicer with our share of the wool?" Our question is of Scottish self-determination, a choice of two futures - a future that endorses the status quo, and a future that aspires well beyond it.

England is not flourishing as long as Westminster is tending a pocket empire of remaining constituent nations and Scotland is not flourishing as long as it has the complacent luxury of blaming others for its shortcomings. Independence is the natural state of nations and united kingdoms are, mercifully, a scarcity in this day and age.

Chris Hugh MacKenzie,

63 Greenfield Avenue,

Ayr.

GEORGE Leslie (Letters, April 18)confuses me with his logic. I can only deduce that he is a minimalist, as he appears to believe that Scotland should be an independent state based on the concept that less is more. I feel the focus of his argument amounts to saying that a man will get on better with his wife if they were divorced. He would then he able to say to people it was all her fault but they remain friends.

As anyone who has been involved in assuring quality knows, it is very easy to state that you are doing well when it is only yourself doing the assessment. Mr Young seems to wish to distort the distinction between our proud nationhood within the UK and the national insularity which comes from only being responsible for yourself. Scotland is a nation today and will remain so regardless of how the voting goes in September. Political unification has not diluted this concept, though I recognise that there are some unhappy people in Scotland who are desperate for power and would wish to complain that it has.

The desire for independence which has been promoted by the SNP betrays a rebellious streak and indigenous discontent which appears now to be a permanent and negative feature of nationalism in our country. Are we really expected to believe that when they don't have a Westminster to vilify the protagonists would not overnight turn their angst inwards? Instead of listening to those having a selfish shopping list of things an independent Scotland would demand from the remainder of the UK I would rather side with those who ask, not what we can get out but what we can contribute by staying in this proven and redoubtable Union.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

VOTING Yes won't get rid of Trident. It might possibly, eventually, if the SNP remain in control, move it from Scotland to Wales or somewhere, but it will still exist. The only way to be free of it is to vote it away - at Westminster.

Alexander Caldwell,

33 Pitcairn Crescent, East Kilbride.