AS a Labour-voting Scot who has lived in England for a long time, I was surprised recently to find myself agreeing with George Osborne as he tried to puncture Alex Salmond's fantasy.

The SNP seem to forget that England is in fact very Scottish - here in the Midlands I frequently hear Scottish accents, and many people spontaneously tell me, with pride, of their Scottish parents, or Scottish grandparents, who came south for work. A lot of us would have returned years ago, if there were a lot more jobs to go around, but even Greater Manchester has five million people, so obviously there are more jobs here, closer together.

Remember Tony Blair's Cabinet - were you not proud, as I was, that a bunch of Scots was ruling the entire UK? They improved things - they dealt with the homeless problem very effectively (it is coming back now, there are more beggars again) and they set up SureStart centres for all young children (now being dismantled) and they put a lot of new money into the NHS (now being dismantled). Of course they made mistakes - but any future independent Scottish Government would also have major problems and make mistakes, and it would be no use then blaming Westminster, as they are too fond of doing.

When I left Milngavie for Leeds University, I did not emigrate. I merely moved south (and before me, for a few years each, so did my uncle and my great-grandfather). And when my cousin left Glasgow University with a degree in physics and computer science, he too did not emigrate - but he had to go to Manchester to find a job, and is now in Bristol. We have no vote in this contest, but 16-year-olds in Scotland will. I bet few of those teenagers will bother to vote again afterwards, until perhaps they are 25 or 30.

Bringing my children up in West Yorkshire, I saw in the 1980s and 90s a great gulf develop between the north of England and London, as well as the same gulf between central Scotland and London. Too many Scots ignored the fate of our northern counties of England, which mirrored their own - the decline of industries, of coalfields, a huge rise in unemployment, no cheap housing, many beggars - they should have united to oppose Thatcherism.

The SNP should take a look at ordinary English people, who are much like ordinary Scottish people, and nothing at all like David Cameron and his friends. You have a lot to lose if you reject your relatives down here.

Mrs Mary Rooks,

62 Saville Road,

Blaby, Leicester.

I WONDER if readers fully realise how much our UK Government, public authorities and media disregard Scotland and the Scottish people?

Our recent visits to English friends and family revealed their complete lack of awareness or understanding about the differences in Scotland's approach to major issues such as social care, justice, policing, child care and education. While we have been listening for years to England's social and economic issues through BBC news programmes and Westminster debates, our friends and neighbours south of the Border have had little or no access to any news of distinct Scottish perspectives on national and international issues, and therefore have very little regard for life and opinion north of the Border. To them it's as if Scotland simply doesn't exist or is largely irrelevant.

And there is no better example than the Thames-side tourist information sign in North Greenwich which charts historic events on the Thames throughout the centuries and begins in 8000BC when sea levels rose around Europe and "England became an island". Really? Or the recent remark by BBC's John Inverdale: "If (Andy) Murray wins, England win a group match in the Davis Cup for the first time since 1986."

These are much more than gaffes or mistakes; they truly do reflect a deep-rooted and long-standing "England-only" attitude which regards anything non-English as having no value or status.

Independence supporters do not want Scotland to be anti-English or fanatically nationalist. But we do want Scotland to have independent status, equal to all our neighbours in the British Isles and Europe, to determine our future according to what is best for all people living here and to be valued as a nation for what we are and can be.

Margaret Allison,

30 Tweedbank Ley,

Innerleithen.

THE First Minister does have a remarkable penchant for pronouncing on who should be allowed a vote on his independence project ("Salmond: English won't get vote on sharing sterling if it's an indyref Yes", The Herald, February 27).

First, he denied a vote in the independence referendum to 800,000 native Scots who live in the rest of the UK and beyond. That most of them view Scotland as home, and might well return one day, counts for nothing to the separatists and the sort of socialist Scotland that the latter would want irrevocably to shape after independence. This latter issue is disguised as the "govern­ance" question, a proposition your correspondent Dr Peter Clive (Letters, February 27) puts forward.

The diaspora's qualification to vote could easily have been verified by the submission of birth certificate details on an official application form. Nevertheless, temporarily-resident EU citizens, but not their British equivalents, can register to vote right up to September. This act of exclusion alone, never mind the endless (particularly economic) flaws in the separatist case, will lose Mr Salmond the referendum. He will discover that residents like me, my wife and many others will take a terrible revenge on the SNP in September, because to us blood and friendship ties count for more than the misguided agitations of a narrow political clique.

To cap it all, Mr Salmond now forbids the rest of the UK to exercise a vote on a currency union. To him the other 59m Brits have no say on the matter if Scotland votes for independence. His bare-faced arrogance knows no bounds.

But there is a common theme that runs through these anti-democratic pronouncements. Britishness (which will end if a minority of the Scottish electorate destroys the UK) is synony­mous with everything that the SNP seems to despise: Unionism, Conserva­tism, and Anglophilia. And that is why some foreigners are permitted to vote in September, but the diaspora is not.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive, Glasgow.

DEVOLUTION has been good for Scotland. Devolved issues have allowed the Scottish Parliament to direct resources where they are best utilised. The NHS in Scotland is much better than in England, child care provision and care of the elderly are superior and will improve still further. Teachers are aware that education is moving in diametrically opposite directions between Scotland and England.

Michael Forsyth, George Younger, Tam Dalyell and others strongly opposed devolution and now the same old voices are regurgitating why we should not be able to run our own country. Baroness Annabel Goldie should be ashamed of herself with her condemnation of a Yes vote. She would not be in the House of Lords if not for devolution.

We have enviable assets and untapped assets. As well as energy (oil, shale oil, coal, nuclear, hydro, timber, wind and tidal), we have remarkable intellectual property, world-class universities, light engineering, shipbuilding, electronics, pharmaceuticals, textiles, whisky, tourism and agriculture (including vegetables and soft fruits).

As for the pound sterling, why not establish the Scottish pound and be done with it? After all, it works well for the Canadian dollar and the US dollar being side by side.

So, a Yes vote it must be in September; our grandchildren will never forgive us if we shrink in our determination. I should remind those who think of voting otherwise that they have George Galloway on their side. Need I say more?

Stuart Wright,

8A Redholm Park,

Greenheads Road,

North Berwick.

Scotland is hosting the Common­wealth games in September and has twice previously hosted these games (Edinburgh 1970, 1986). Its sportsmen/sportswomen will be competing under the Scottish flag. But why ?

Scotland is not a member of the Commonwealth, nor are England, Wales or Northern Ireland, who will all be taking part. The Common­wealth's own website lists 54 countries as members; there is no Scotland listed nor any of the nations and provinces comprising the United Kingdom. The UK is, of course, among the 54 countries on the list .

At the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings (CHOGM) there is no representation from any of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, only the head of government of the UK is permitted attendance .

So, why are the "home nations" being allowed to compete individually? Apart from being parts of the UK, what criteria allow them to participate in this gathering of nations, each of whom has had to apply to join the Commonwealth; each of whom must abide by the Harare Principles (ironically, Zimbabwe is no longer a member ) and the Edinburgh Declaration (October 1997), which stipulates that each country must be a "fully sovereign nation" ?

None of the separate parts of the UK can satisfy that simple criterion.

However, if it is acceptable for the member nations and provinces which comprise the UK to compete individually in the Commonwealth Games, when clearly they should not, perhaps a case may be made for the same discretion being applied to the Olympic Games. If our athletes can compete at Commonwealth Games level , what is the barrier to competing at Olympic level ?

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.