Alistair Darling's apparent belief that he speaks for Scotland ("Darling:

I speak for Scotland, not David Cameron", The Herald, September 17) is delusional. He is the main spokesman for the Better Together campaign only because the Prime Minister appointed him to that role. The only mandate Mr Darling has in Scotland is from the 29% of the total electorate of Edinburgh West who voted for him in the 2010 General Election. He is now just another opposition MP in Westminster, and there is no reason why any senior Scottish government minister should be involved in public debates with him.

Mr Darling alleges that, in challenging David Cameron to take part in open debate on independence, Alex Salmond is putting his ego and personal ambition ahead of the interests of Scotland. I would remind him that Mr Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland, head of a Scottish Government elected with an overall majority under a system specifically designed by Mr Darling's party to make that impossible. That is his mandate to lead the campaign for independence. Why should he agree to debate the issue in public with a backbench Labour MP? It is perfectly obvious that the Prime Minister, head of a coalition of unionist parties, is the real leader of Better Together.

Mr Darling claims to "speak for Scotland", but for most of the time he speaks against Scotland, constantly seeking to belittle his native country and spreading ridiculous scare stories about the multiple disasters that will befall us if we dare to leave the UK and take charge of our own affairs.

Today Danny Alexander, a Scottish Liberal Democratic who is supposed to believe in Home Rule, is telling his conference that an independent Scotland will lose many thousands of jobs. That is a typically disgraceful assertion with no justification whatever.

I am still awaiting some positive examples of why Scotland would be better remaining within an increasingly disunited United Kingdom very heavily in debt, selling off public assets, privatising the NHS, and run mainly for the benefit of London, the City and the South-East. We have a small minority representation in an archaic and dysfunctional parliamentary system, with major parties who know little and care less about the differing needs and ambitions of Scotland and, indeed, other regions in England.

Why should we wish to continue in that unhappy arrangement? One year from today the people of Scotland will finally have the chance to reclaim our own nation, make better use of our own exceptional national resources, and take charge of our own political, economic and cultural future. I can think of no reason why we should not wish to do so.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

We should be more than a little surprised at Alistair Darling's denial of history in his suggestion that, with respect to independence, he and not the Prime Minister should speak for Scotland.

With a great uncle, Sir William Darling, a former Conservative and Unionist MP for South Edinburgh (1945-57), Alistair Darling would be well aware of Empire and the substantial movement for independence - a difficult world in which well over 40 countries decoupled from the rule of Westminster making a better way in a difficult world.

However, none of those countries engaged with the viceroy or a local representative of the Westminster Parliament but with the substantive London Government of the day.

As an Aberdeen University student and member of the left International Marxist Group (the British section of the Trotskysit Fourth International) Alistair Darling would be well aware of the demands of anti-colonial movements around the globe and no doubt he supported many of them in their determination to create better societies free from Westminster rule.

Furthermore, as Chancellor of the Exchequer he would have taken notice of the successful economic and social development of post independent states like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and smaller ones like Singapore and Barbados, who have retained the Queen as well as substantial commercial connections with London.

Historically, independence has produced winners and he knows that. Why should he seek to deny history now?

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green,

Carluke.

I had thought that Alastair Darling, as a seasoned politician, would have risen above any personal slight on his status as leader of the No campaign. However, his assertion that he should face the First Minister in a televised debate is quite wrong. He is merely the chairperson of the Better Together organisation and is very welcome to be challenged by his opposite number, Dennis Canavan.

Alex Salmond is head of the Scottish Government and rightly should be able to challenge the UK Prime Minister, primarily because both governments are using their resources to engage in the very public debate of our constitutional future. It is Mr Cameron who is answerable for the UK Government department views, of which there appears to be one a day, and it is for him to provide answers about where the UK aims to go in the immediate to long term.

If Mr Darling should ever return to UK Government, then he will have more authority to represent that institution. Until that day, he is merely a campaign figurehead.

Grant Thoms,

Flat 1/2, 85 Quarrywood Road,

Glasgow.