England may come to realise benefits of Scots independence

I would expect that English citizens, for they are in the vast majority in the UK, would not be exercised if Scotland became independent. I would also think that a currency union with Scotland would probably be near the bottom of any concerns, but near to the top would be the current practice of Scottish MPs voting in Parliament on purely English issues, sometimes being pivotal in the outcome. That would be ended and be welcomed. Scottish independence might also see off the notion of England's taxes propping up a nation of "subsidy junkies" - a mean-spirited view, but one that I have heard more than enough!

Scottish independence therefore, might give England a positive but unintended outcome, their own brand of independence. I do not grudge that and would hope to see the end of any Scottish participation in their governance.

To suggest further that the "preferential to Scotland" Barnett formula should be reviewed in the intervening period between a Yes vote and the date of formal independence at least provides a clue to the real intentions of Mark Field and his colleagues in the Coalition, to punish Scotland if they dare to vote Yes.

Ian McLaren,

Buchanan Drive, Lenzie.

MSP Ken Macintosh's concerns about the implications of devolving income tax to the Scottish Parliament ("A fairer Scotland with no need to cut off our nose to spite our face", Herald Agenda, February 3) are groundless. Income tax accounts for around 23% of total tax revenues in Scotland. The idea that devolving that amount of revenue might lead to "independence by default" cannot sustain serious scrutiny. Indeed, no scheme under serious consideration would put much more than 35% of total taxes raised from Scotland into the hands of a Scottish exchequer, while also strengthening the powers and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

The 1998 model of devolution which Mr Macintosh extols always had serious flaws in it, which Labour left unresolved while in government in both London and the Edinburgh. It is now also clearly out of touch with the aspirations of the majority of Scottish voters. Fiscal devolution along the lines we have mapped out in the Institute of Public Policy Research's Devo More project offers a way to put the devolved constitution of Scotland back on the right side of public opinion, without affecting key interests of social solidarity or the union, but reinforcing it so it works for the 21st century.

Professor Alan Trench,

Project adviser, Institute of Public Policy Research Devo More programme,

14 Buckingham Street, London.

GEORGE Galloway has been a charismatic speaker against the UK's foreign policy in recent years. This makes it all the more curious that he is so keen to defend its continuing existence and deny Scottish indepen­dence ("Galloway says he would like to be PM of an indepen­dent country", The Herald, February 4).

However he demonstrated his ignorance of Scottish politics by claiming there were 71 Scottish MPs when there are actually 59. He also argued that Northern Ireland should join the south to become a united Ireland. However, Scotland was different, he said, because we hadn't been conquered but had chosen to be part of the UK. But only 5% of Scots had the vote in 1707 and there were widespread demonstrations against the Act of Union throughout Scotland.

The truth is that George Galloway loves Scotland so much that he has lived in London for the last 30 years. I am afraid he is a colourful irrelevance to the debate on independence,

Hugh Kerr,

23 Braehead Avenue, Edinburgh.

DAVID Torrance puts so many canards into the pond - as well as paper tigers into the woods - with his piece on "Nordic fetishism" that I am surprised he has not gone deaf with their quacking ("A look beyond the fantasy politics of Nordic fetishism", The Herald February 3). The Scottish Government, with all its flaws, is social democratic in many of its policies in ways that consecutive neo-liberal Westminster govern­ments have never been. The evidence that people in Scotland support a more social democratic approach could therefore reasonably be drawn from the national election results in Scotland.

Recent polls have also shown that a majority in Scotland are not "anti-immigration" as such and are closer to the evidence base that migrants bring more benefits than burdens than the neo-liberal ideological Coalition. The Scottish Government also recognises the benefits of migration and could not therefore be described in this field as neo-liberal.

So the Scandinavians expect good public services but accept that their taxes will be higher. That sounds like a much fairer basis for running a country than the neo-liberal approach we've got in Westminster - but not Holyrood - that demonises the weak and vulnerable. How espousing this Nordic model in Scotland can be viewed as fetishism I don't know.

A devolved Scotland is a much more imperfect model than an independent Scotland is likely to be in controlling all its own social and economic policies. The Scottish economy functioning independently will be quite capable of performing well and delivering the social policies that Mr Torrance casts doubt upon with or without Nordic playmates.

Professor Andrew Watterson,

Acregate, Burnside,

Kippen.

I GENERALLY find David Torrance an informed and balanced commentator on the independence debate, but I have to question his grasp of the point Yes campaigners are making when they cite the Nordic countries' success.

It has nothing to do with emulating them in every respect as he seems to suggest. Such a thing would be impossible as each has taken its own course in reaching the goal of prosperity and equality. Similarly, the Alpine and Low countries have succeeded in achieving a level of prosperity that Scots can only dream of. They too have followed their own individual paths in achieving this.

All these diverse countries have attained a high-wage, low-poverty and more equal society while Scotland under the Union has not. The only common factor they share that Scotland lacks is that they are independent and are able to make the big decisions in their own self interest. They do not have to hope a government furth of their border will either take them into consideration or not make decisions in the best interests of others that will be damaging to the social and economic fabric of their own country.

All these small, independent and prosperous countries are evidence that such states are more than capable of being successful and that there are many routes to that success. Being a peripheral region of the UK prevents Scotland from emulating them. That is the point Yes campaigners are making when they cite them.

Stuart Allan,

Flat E, 8 Nelson Street, Dundee.