I NOTE with interest the contribution from Philip Maughan, in which he describes his nightmare scenario of Scotland rejecting independence (Letters, September 13).

Both sides can have nightmares. Here is mine: Scotland votes Yes and enters a period of negotiations with a bitter rUK; they prove extremely tough. A blank refusal to share the currency means that the Scottish Government has to raise several billion pounds to support their choice of using the pound without underpinning by the Bank of England. Money markets predict that about £20 billion should do the trick. The need for this support, plus the £6bn fiscal deficit at the time of the referendum, means that the Government can neither attract investors to encourage economic growth nor provide the various social services promised in their White Paper. Instead it has to raise taxes and cut expenditure in order to show international investors that it takes its fiscal responsibilities seriously.

I see the financial sector, which is responsible for about £11bn of exports to rUK, being hollowed out as the various banks and companies set up offices where their major markets are. I see the two naval dockyards on the Clyde closing and the replacement of Trident by the Scottish Defence Headquarters stalled because the Government feels that further defence cuts are needed to balance the budget. Old people, who mostly voted to stay in the Union, are asked to take a cut in pensions because the triple lock promised during the campaign turns out to be unaffordable. Universities, shorn of the fees paid by the students from rUK, and by a falling in grants from rUK bodies suffer cuts and some are forced to shut down in order to allow the more established to survive - just as the government cut colleges of further education before the referendum.

The result of all this hardship is that many emigrate and the population of Scotland starts to fall again. Worse; those who voted for independence feel betrayed and turn on the Government with venom, rejecting a call for unity in the face of these difficulties. The fall from third wealthiest region/nation in the former UK to bottom of the league is too much to stomach. Alex Salmond retires, having achieved his great ambition to be the father of the reborn Scotland.

When did we last face such a mess? My dream drifts back to the Darien Adventure. Now how did we get out of that, I wonder?

Luckily this is only a nightmare.

Michael Boulton-Jones,

5, Glassford Street,

Milngavie.

PHILIP Maughan's nightmare of waking up to a victory for the No campaign (Letters, September 13) will be nothing compared to Alex Salmond's in the event of a Yes victory. The sleepless nights will start when he realises that the White Paper, Scotland's Future, is not as comprehensive a document as he has been suggesting in recent months. Whilst there are clear plans for welfare and an Expert Working Group on Welfare, there is no such clear arrangement for establishing an effective agency to collect tax. If there is a Yes victory and the people of Scotland discover that the Scottish Government's plan for establishing an independent country are flawed, then come the elections in 2016 the SNP will face electoral oblivion.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens,

Edinburgh.

DENIS Nicol (Letters, September 13) cites the failure of the Darien Scheme as a reason to support independence. I would draw the opposite conclusion.

Anyone who has read John Prebble's detailed account of this sorry affair will realise that the Darien enterprise was a Utopian scheme that was ill-conceived and badly executed. It was madness to set up an isolated Scottish colony, with no back-up, in part of the Spanish New World, especially when the King and English government made it clear they did not wish to engage in war with Spain.

To take woollen stockings, periwigs and other unsuitable trade goods to the tropics was hardly sensible. And to cap it all, the expedition was led by the high heid yins of Scottish society, who drank copious amounts of liquor and plotted to undermine each other. The result was that hundreds of ordinary Scots lost their lives and many more their savings; the blame was laid on England and, shamefully, three innocent English seamen were put to death in Edinburgh as a result of mass hysteria.

The parallels for today are obvious. We are asked to embark on an idealistic venture, with no risk assessment. The positives are played up and the negatives overlooked. I would have a great deal more respect for the pro-independence movement if it could acknowledge that there are known hazards and probably unexpected adverse consequences.

As a result of independence we could face higher prices, higher taxes and fewer job opportunities for Scottish people at home, in England and in the European Union. Is this a risk we are prepared to take?

Margaret Morton,

13 Gartmore Road,

Paisley.

A NUMBER of No campaigners have suggested there would be a £6bn black hole in the Scottish economy during the first year of independence. This, of course, is pure conjecture. What is hard fact is that there is just now a black hole of truly gargantuan proportions in the UK economy. Thanks to gross fiscal mismanage­ment and irresponsibility begun by Margaret Thatcher's obsession with deregulation in the financial sector and continued by messrs Brown and Darling, the UK's national debt amounts to a staggering £1,324.3bn. This works out at £20,790 for every man, woman and child in the UK. At the moment, the Government is unable even to contain the country's debt. Instead, it is growing by about £137bn per annum.

Unionist propagandists deride a vote for independence as taking a step into the unknown. What then, do these same people have to say about voting to stay in the thrall of an unrepre­sentative Tory Government which has no idea how to even pay the annual interest on this huge millstone round the neck of everyone of us? What a legacy to leave for our children and grandchildren.

Alan Woodcock,

23 Osborne Place,

Dundee.