I REFER to Andrew McKie's thoughtful comments on life after September 18 this year ("Yes or No , there should be no crowing or casting up", The Herald, April 24).

I believe that the repercussions of a Yes vote are likely to be more marked, since a No vote will probably mean more of the same as we know it, whether or not a UK government eventually decides to go down the road of a bit more devo-max.

If just some of the predictions about an independent Scotland should come to pass, then "casting up" will be irresistible to many. Let us think of the reaction should there ensue, for example:

l A serious loss of jobs in the event of (a) major companies moving their headquarters elsewhere and (b) Trident being relocated;

l The cost of provision of private pensions being significantly increased;

l The sustainability of the payment of state pensions and benefits coming into question;

l The adverse consequences of Scotland having to accept the euro in exchange for entry into the EU;

l Scottish banks having to be bailed out in an exercise similar to that in the recent past.

l The lack of reliable energy generation resources in the absence of nuclear power in Scotland,

l Increased income tax rates to sustain the expenditure aspirations of a well to the left-of-centre government.

One can, therefore, imagine, quite easily, a bit of a hullaballoo in the years following a Yes vote.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.

WITH regards to Andrew McKie's incisive article, if the vote is for independence I think there will be more resentment on the No side as there will be no "going back" and the decision will be final; but if it is No and the SNP remain in power they will seek to come back for a second time around.

Alan Stephen,

15 Beechlands Avenue,

Glasgow.

I WOULD like to thank Andrew McKie for his thought-provoking piece on the ramifications of the independence referendum. In the sea of daily nonsense being served up to us it was a lifebuoy which we could clutch at in the hope that a least someone is thinking and writing sense. If I had my way the article would be included with every voting slip.

Alan Barlow,

22 Aboyne Drive, Paisley.

I FAIL to understand the point Harry Reid is trying to make when he says that Harold Macmillan sold out Scotland because he obtained a poor deal on the siting of the nuclear deterrent in 1960 ("Macmillan's sell-out a vital lesson for Scotland", The Herald, April 22). What he is in effect saying is that the UK failed to be "independent" and bent to a larger power. If the UK cannot make independent decisions, what chance has a much smaller place like Scotland? It is a big, bad world out there and we need all the friends we can get to help negotiate Scotland's best interests against more powerful countries, multi-national conglom­erates and the bureaucrats in Europe when they forget they are the servants of the people and not their masters.

Nationalists would have us lose 59 seats at Westminster when it and the City of London would still have a large influence on our economy, especially if we were to negotiate retention of the pound. I reckon that this would be a huge loss of democratic power for Scots.

David Stark,

10 York Mews, Cape Town.

YOU report that Alex Salmond in his St George's Day message delivered in Carlisle, confirmed his intention to set up a feasibility study to examine the options for a high-speed rail link from Scotland to England ("First Minister announces feasibility study into new high-speed rail link", The Herald April 24).

Can this be the same man whose government has to date failed to provide a rail link to Glasgow's International Airport, proposed in 2007 for completion in 2013?

Brian GJ Canty,

13 Chapelacre Grove,

Helensburgh.

ALEX Salmond assumed office as First Minister on May 16, 2007, since when St George's Day has been and gone seven times. On St George's Day 2014, the First Minister visited the North of England and indicated that "it's time to take positive action to build links with Scotland".

Why only now? Is this proposal one of the goodies kept in cold storage until September 18 is nigh? Alex Salmond confesses de facto dereliction of duty by not taking "positive action" previously.

William Durward,

20 South Erskine Park,

Bearsden.

DEREK Miller (Letters, April 24) in criticising Alex Salmond's speech in Carlisle conveniently forgets David Cameron's hijacking of St Andrew's Day with a party in 10 Downing Street. The Prime Minister was in such a hurry to organise it that hadn't noticed he had a prior engagement and was unable to be there in person.

From my viewpoint, the only people driving a wedge between Scotland and England are those who continually carp and criticise. The people of Scotland voted by a large majority for a party whose policy was to provide a referendum on independence for Scotland. That in precisely what the Scottish Government is doing,

Since we are supposed to be a democratic country, can we have fewer of the personal attacks on individuals and a little more positive understanding of other people's views?

Grace Reid,

29 Arkleston Road, Paisley.

CATHERINE MacLeod makes the common Better Together mistake of conflating the independence campaign and Alex Salmond, with nine name checks for the First Minister in her article ("Salmond is risking so much for no gain at all", The Herald, April 24). She also displays an extremely rosy view of life south of the Border.

Her description of England is of "a tolerant, inclusive, welcoming country"; has she heard nothing of the welfare attacks on the poorest in society, is she blinded to the gross inequalities between the super-rich and the rest, has she stopped her ears to the clamour among politicians in Westminster for draconian measures to restrict immigration?

She appears to be blind to the forces driving the Yes campaign: the need to protect the NHS in Scotland, the obscenity of nuclear weapons 20 miles from our largest city, the problems of an ageing Scottish population ignored by the UK, and the growing disillusion with Westminster politics which clearly favours London and the south-east .

In her eyes it seems that the independence campaign is Alex Salmond's malevolent one-man crusade to destroy the amicable partnership between two equal partners. This is very far from the truth.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

IT seems that Peter A Russell (Letters, April 24) believes Scotland will have a better future in the world if it is part of one of the most influential members in the UN, with a permanent seat on the Security Council.

Would it not then follow, according to Mr Russell's logic, that Ukraine would be better served as part of the Russian Federation rather than continuing as an independent country?

Geoff Caldwell,

23 Fullarton Drive, Troon.

I CHECKED on the UN website this morning and could not find any reference to Scotland as an independent nation or UN member state.

Accordingly I deduce that we have no international influence. So I am perplexed by Mr Russell's assertion to the contrary.

Scotland does not, and cannot, influence the machinations of the UK government or Foreign Office.

Mr Russell imagines the requirements of Scotland are somehow of consideration when UK foreign policy is implemented.

The Foreign Office represents the UK. This may on frequent occasions go against the best interests of Scotland - witness the examples of Iraq and Libya.

Surely the most representative and influential body to promote Scottish interests abroad is an independent Scottish government voted for by Scots and primarily interested in Scotland?

Simon Taylor,

3 Kirkdene Place,Glasgow.