Apathy among its supporters is the real danger to No campaign

There is, however, a much more serious issue. Those intending to vote No ought to recognise that there is an obligation on them to be active in the defence of their country and all that it represents.

The real danger for the No cause is apathy. Should it lose it is more than likely that the blame will lie, not with the inadequacy of the politicians leading the No campaign, but with the apathy of those opponents of independence who thought that all they had to do was put their crosses in the appropriate box on the ballot paper on September 18. Democracy requires much more of us. We have an opportunity to build upon our distinctive Scottish identity while contributing to and sharing in the development of a UK of which all citizens feel a part.

We who value the country in the dual-citizenship of which we were either born or into which we came later in life must match the commitment of the Nationalists.

John Milne,

9 Ardgowan Drive,

Uddingston.

YOUR report on the attitudes of young voters ("Young voters turning their back on referendum debate", The Herald, March 19) mirrors my own experience on the apparent apathy of youth on this matter. Locally, courtesy of our church stewardship committee, we hosted a Question Time debate for senior pupils of East Renfrewshire schools and youth organisations. The input and questions posed by the pupils present were encouraging, albeit the total attendance of 34 young folk was disappointing.

Considering the panel comprised four seasoned councillors and a Police Scotland senior officer, this was an opportunity for a two-way informative exchange of question and answer.

Considering the considerable cost incurred in accommodating 16-year-olds with the right to vote, it is desirable senior pupils throughout Scotland will be afforded a similar opportunity courtesy of school councils or community groups. Thereby the views of both the Yes and No camps can be expressed and debated openly.

It is vital that our nation's young folk do not remain switched off on the forthcoming historic referendum issue.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.

I AM not surprised that young people are turning away from the referendum debate when there has been so much sniping coming from both sides and a distinct lack of concrete information. At the very outset, Alex Salmond was warned that the long run-in to the referendum vote risked business uncertainty and voter apathy. These chickens are now coming home to roost as a staleness has settled over this critical issue. It's hard to see where the spark will come from to ignite the debate,

Bob MacDougall,

Oxhill,

Kippen.

YOUR editorial ("A step forward on devolution", The Herald, March 19) states that in his speech to his party's conference in Edinburgh David Cameron "promised more tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament". What he actually said was that "a No vote can [not will] lead to more devolution". That is a long way short of a promise or a commitment.

A headline on your politics page also suggests a firm promise by Johann Lamont ("Lamont pledges wide-ranging Holyrood powers after review", The Herald, March 19). As leader only of the Scottish Labour Party, Ms Lamont is not in a position to make such pledges and commit her party at Westminster to something which many Labour backbenchers strongly oppose. She was merely reporting the proposals of her party's devolution commis­sion, and she cannot give an assurance that these will be adopted as official Labour policy and included in its next manifesto.

Whichever party or coalition is in power after the 2015 General Election, there is no guarantee that even such limited further devolution will be enacted, and it could be watered down even further and given a very low priority over the next five years. After all, in the current UK Parliament even the modest proposals of the Calman Commis­sion, which were agreed by all three Scottish Unionist parties, were severely modified during the bill's passage through the Commons.

All that seems to be on offer so far is that the Scottish Parliament should retain up to 75% of income tax raised in Scotland, and to raise or lower the basic rates. That would certainly make the Scottish Government more accountable to the electorate but income tax is the least effective tool in managing the Scottish economy and improving living standards. What about all the other taxes generated in Scotland, most of which are much more useful as economic levers? What about corporation tax on company profits made in Scotland, value added tax paid by us on goods and services, petroleum revenue tax on profits earned on oil from Scottish waters? Why should 100% of all of these continue to flow to the London Treasury, leaving the Holyrood Government almost powerless to influence our own economy?

The Better Together campaign constantly demands absolute certainty on a wide range of matters after independence, most of which depend on detailed negotiations or can only be predictions at the moment. The vague hints (not firm commit­ments) now emerging from the Unionist parties are of little relevance in helping the Scottish people to reach a decision in September. They look very much like a repeat of the notorious Alec Douglas-Home promise in 1979, and we all know what became of that once Mrs Thatcher took control. We should not be misled by these vague assurances.

If there is a No vote, it is highly likely that Scotland will be on the back burner at Westminster for many years, and the UK Govern­ment's agenda will continue to be dominated by the economic demands of London, the south-east and the City. The only way to guarantee that future Scottish Parliaments have effective control of our nation's economic and social affairs is to vote for full independence.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

IN your editorial you correctly highlight the significant number of voters who favour devolving more powers to Holyrood. Many of these voters will be in favour of achieving independence by building up an effective Scottish Government under devolution which can seamlessly transfer to a fully independent parliament if and when the time is right. This group is not properly represented in the referendum debate.

Before being asked to decide whether or not we are better as an independent country or better as part of the United Kingdom, there should be a critical look at how we best achieve independence. The policy of the Yes Scotland group is to grab independence through the ballot box, against which the Better Together group can only offer promises of further devolution.

Following the referendum, assuming that there is a vote against independence, all political parties should be looking at how best the Scottish people can best be served by further devolution. The SNP and others can do so with a view to creating a nation which is better equipped to become an independent nation, the Liberal Democrats can do so with the aim of securing a federalist system, while the rest can do so with a view to remaining within the United Kingdom.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens,

Edinburgh.

FIRST we had the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, comparing Scotland with Kosovo ("Barroso in Kosovo warning on hopes of EU membership", The Herald, February 17). Now we have our own Struan Stevenson, MEP, linking Scotland with accession states such as Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia (Letters, March 19). These men are two long-serving and highly-paid EU politicians who seem to have forgotten the meaning of democracy and fairness.

Their positions are completely inconsistent and increasingly untenable. They need to forget about semantic arguments concerning whether Scotland or the rest of the UK would be the continuing state in the event of a vote in favour of Scottish independence.

Instead they should be considering only fairness to the people of Scotland and to the people in the rest of the UK. Are they really saying that 50m-plus people in the rest of the UK will be granted fast-track access to the EU, but that the five milllion-plus Scots who have also been members of the EU for more than 40 years will be denied that right? They say there is no precedent for a new independent Scotland to be admitted via a fast-track process. Nor is there any precedent for five million people to be kicked out and told that they will need to reapply and renegotiate their position.

At a time when the EU and the West are claiming the moral high ground in their war of words with Vladimir Putin over his actions in Crimea, this would be a monumental own goal in that battle, and one that would give succour to despots throughout the world.

In the case of Mr Stevenson, as my old mammy would have said, he should remember which side his bread is buttered on. However, I am sure that his position is just another example of scaremongering within the No camp, and that, if Scotland does indeed vote for independence, he will do what he is paid to do, which is to work ceaselessly to protect the rights and interests of the Scottish people.

John Jones,

16 Ballantine Drive,

Ayr.