Consider the consequences of splitting shared infrastructure

The silent issue is the huge amount of common infrastructure that works very well in practice but would then need, legally and politically, to be broken up. The cost and inconvenience of this split has not been fully debated or appreciated.

For example, in fewer than 100 words the Scotland's Future document announces that the current arrangements for air traffic control will be continue with an "appropriate" share being negotiated.

This is hopelessly simplistic. The Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick, which controls aircraft across all Scotland, also controls aircraft across Northern Ireland, more than half of Northern England and halfway across the Atlantic, too. Clearly, if Scotland became indepen­dent, it would be politically unaccept­able for air traffic in the rest of the UK to be controlled by a foreign power.

A newly-separated Scotland would need to join the International Civil Aviation Authority, create a relation­ship with the Single European Sky, join Eurocontrol and also establish its own internal civil aviation authority. All of this would have to be underpinned by bespoke primary and secondary legislation written after agreements with all the participating parties had been hammered out. And then there are all the industry agreements to be considered. None of this has even been alluded to in Scotland's Future.

In plain terms, breaking some­thing working so well in practice, just to mend it back together at great expense, seems pointless and harmful to both jurisdictions.

The same applies to the rest of the sophisticated, currently unbroken, infrastructure making up modern Britain. The complexities of splitting it up have been grossly under­­estimated.

Rightly, the independence referendum is confined to those on the electoral role in Scotland. However, had the rest of the UK been asked to vote too then we would have had a much broader debate about the full ramifications of a split.

Tristram C Llewellyn Jones,

The Cronk, Church Road,

Ramsey,

Isle of Man.

YOU report on the oft-repeated threat of the SNP Government not to pay any share of the £1.4 trillion UK debt should there not be a currency union in the event of a Yes vote ("Salmond refuses to withdraw threat to renege on independent Scotland's debt", The Herald, September 1).

Whilst I do not have a breakdown of this massive debt, it occurs to me that it must have been built up at least in substantial part over the years in saving some existing assets in Scotland from extinction such as RBS, in preserving others for posterity such as cathedrals, castles, landscapes and so on, in funding the creation of new assets such as hospitals, social housing, aircraft carriers, and even in the creation of the Holyrood complex itself.

In such a scenario, why should the Scottish Government have any claim to any part of these assets? It would be helpful if any of your regularly Yes-supporting columnists or correspondents could justify their belief in the legitimacy of such a claim.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

I AM surprised that while Scotland's share of debt is being fiercely debated, no-one has questioned the legality of Westminster's proposal to seize Scotland's assets in the event of a Yes vote.

Jim Dear,

82 Marketgate,

Arboath.

I WAS very moved by Captain Duncan Gordon's pertinent letter (September 3). The importance of the Merchant Navy is too often ignored and Capt Gordon is right to point out the risks inherent in unscrupulous ship owners, inadequate regulation, and diminuation of the current training standards. The UK has a great debt to, and dependency on, our merchant fleet and a disproportionate number of its officers, warrant officers and men come from Scotland's western and northern seaboards. These are facts which too many people and politicians overlook.

In the Falklands War, as in wars before, the Merchant Navy paid a terrible price, without which victory would not have been possible. Shortly thereafter the Westminster Government removed the restrictions on ownership of British merchant vessels and this led to a sharp decline, not only in vessels flying the Red Ensign, but in the quality and regulation of owners of vessels which did. Little has been done to rectify the situation. In the mean­time our fisheries were used as a bagatelle in negotiations within the EU and its predecessors. Thus, while it is true that the UK has the globally highest standards in training and quality, precious little has been done to protect her seafarers and their livelihoods.

Sadly, merchant shipping is not an issue which figures much in the polling booth and is certainly of remarkably little interest to Westminster politicians who treat its Scottish interests with contempt. My father, Captain John Campbell, was the statutory harbour master of Clydeport and I remember his fury at the way the merchant fleet was being undermined by Westminster legislation and his frustration that commercial shipping on the Clyde was being restricted by the presence of the Faslane base. My submission to Capt Gordon is that such issues are more likely to receive sympathetic treatment from a Scottish Parliament with significant representation from its seaboard constituencies rather than a Westminster dominated by the need to win marginal seats in the South East of England.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

"REMEMBER your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death." These crucial words from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 came to mind reading the beautiful letter from Meg Lindsay (September 3), in which she writes of her promise to her grandson.

Her plea is based not on self-interest, or alleged fiscal or financial advantage, but on the basic human value of love, and is unassailable. We can build a new society founded on co-operation and social justice. Or we can go on threatening the world with global nuclear suicide. Never was there a more important moral decision; it will resonate throughout the world.

Do we just go believing we are too wee, too poor, and too stupid do be anything other than a dumping ground for the UK's nuclear weapon of mass destruction, or can we build a new more humane and just Scotland?

Her wonderful letter is answer enough. I have always loved Millport, my personal Garden of Eden. I will love it even more now.

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue,

Glasgow.

I AM becoming increasingly confused by the rhetoric of Better Together campaigners.

They say that if Scotland votes for independence there is "no going back". They also claim that the rest of the UK don't want us to go. So, surely if things didn't work out under independence, we'd be welcomed back especially if we came begging with our tails between our legs?

John Eoin Douglas,

7 Spey Terrace,

Edinburgh.

NOT being a Scottish Nationalist, it should be a relatively easy task for the usual suspects in the Unionist camp to convince me to vote No, by reminding me of the halcyon days enjoyed by the people in Scotland from say, the Jim Callaghan Government in 1976, followed by Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and as for the future, maybe Londoncentric Boris Johnson.

Or is that scaremongering?

Jim McSheffrey,

61 Merryvale Avenue,

Giffnock.

I WATCHED Yes or No - The Debate on STV on Tuesday. One of Kezia Dugdale's major points was that the SNP Government at Holyrood had not taken any meaningful measures to address wealth distribution inequalities. As a Labour politician she felt that her party would have done more and had policies to improve things in the future.

Whether or not she is correct, she should reflect that voting Yes in the coming referendum would give her party a much better chance of seeing these policies adopted in an independent Scotland than in a continuing UK government led by the two Eds if they were to be elected next May - and that is no shoo-in.

Labour supporters should recognise that the question to be answered on September 18 is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" not "Should the SNP be the future government of an independent Scotland?"

Jim Proctor,

Creagmhor,

Ardgartan,

Argyll.

I WAS heartened by the excellent referendum debate on STV with the team of three for the Yes camp headed by Nicola Sturgeon and by Douglas Alexander for Better Together.

This was a far cry from the two confrontational and unpleasant argy-bargies between Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling and both sides deserve great credit for conducting it with civility and without evasion.

I remain convinced that Better Together offers a much sounder future, but believe that with goodwill from all sides Scotland can prosper whatever the result on September 18.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road,

Kilbirnie.