IaIn AD Mann (Letters, September 18) believes that "Delusional Darling has no right to public debate with Salmond".

But surely, in a democratic system, who debates with whom is a matter of choice and Mr Salmond deliberately chooses to avoid debate with Mr Darling. It seems to me he does so because he fears that Alasdair Darling's lifelong experience and in-depth knowledge of Scotland and Scottish politics would make Mr Darling a more effective opponent than an English Tory PM. That's fair enough if all Mr Salmond wants to do is win a TV argument. But the break-up of the UK is more important to the people of Scotland than a crafty tactical move in a political campaign and/or a temporary boost to the First Minister's already inflated ego. If Mr Salmond genuinely seeks to debate and clarify the issues, what better way of doing so than to have two Scottish political heavyweights conducting a serious examination, in public, of all the matters which affect Scotland's future?

If Mr Salmond really is serious about seeking to inform the referendum campaign he will accept Alasdair Darling's challenge. If he continues to dodge the debate it will look like Mr Salmond is craftily angling for party and personal advantage rather than trying to find the best way to examine the case for and against independence in the run-up to next year's referendum. It will also appear to the Scottish people that Mr Salmond lacks the confidence to debate his case against an opponent who knows the issues at least as well as Mr Salmond does.

Alex Gallagher,

12 Phillips Avenue,

Largs.

Whilst I agree with Iain AD Mann's assertion that Alastair Darling does not speak for the whole of Scotland, there are nevertheless a number of inaccuracies and downright fallacies in his letter.

Mr Mann asserts that there is no reason why any Scottish Government minister should take part in a debate with Mr Darling. However, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has debated with Mr Darling on numerous occasions and has stated that she would be more than willing to do so again. Furthermore, this week, numerous national newspapers gave space to Messrs Salmond and Darling to outline their respective cases for and against independence. This illustrates that Mr Salmond is quite happy to publicly debate with Mr Darling, but only if it is in a format which suits him. It also indicates that the vast majority of people in Scotland view both men as the political heads of the opposing campaigns.

The Prime Minister has passionate views on the constitutional question, and he is entitled to do so. However, I believe that most Scots would be perplexed as to why an English politician who will not have a vote in the referendum should be compelled to take part in a TV debate with a Scottish politician who does. The First Minister has previously said that the referendum should be decided by the Scottish people and labelled any intervention from the Prime Minister as "Thatcheresque". Yet he is happy to cast Mr Cameron as some sort of English bogeyman when he doesn't like the decisions the Scottish people make. The First Minister's churlish demands will only serve to undermine his credibilty even further.

Mr C Taylor,

5/9 Powderhall Brae,

Edinburgh.

I refer to The Herald Letters of September 18. Your correspondents on this subject are being somewhat naive in relation to the world of politics. All the recent polls have shown that the pro-independence camp is lagging well behind those of a Better Together persuasion.

There has been a clear trend in these polls. These results reveal that Alex Salmond and his cohorts have something of a mountain to climb.The odds against a Yes vote, being given currently by the bookmakers, would seem to confirm that. Given these indicators of public opinion, why would David Cameron agree to give the oxygen of publicity to Alex Salmond engendered by a debate between the two of them? Mr Salmond may desperately seek one, but Cameron does not need one to bolster the case he espouses.

Moreover, your front page headline ("Economy emerges as key independence battleground") goes a long way to crystallise matters. I have always thought that economic considerations would be the determining factor at the time of the 2014 referendum. Accordingly, people's perceptions of their future financial wellbeing would over-ride concepts essentially driven by emotional considerations.

The Scots tend to be a realistic people and realise that there is more to life than images of creating a Brigadoon-like land with a surfeit of oil and whisky, with the skirling of the pipes, with the whirling of the kilts, with the admiring of panoramas of heather-clad hills and glens (and wind turbines), and with even more toastings to the health of Robert Burns. Yes, we have an affection , if not a love, for most of these things, but as Bill Clinton once said in a presidential election in the US: "It's the economy, stupid."

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.

I REFER to your report ("Darling: I speak for Scotland, not David Cameron", The Herald, September 17) . If we look at Alistair Darling's time as Chancellor of the Exchequer - 2008-2010 - it would seem more accurate to say he speaks for the City of London.

Whilst Chancellor, Mr Darling co-chaired the notorious Bischoff Report of 2009, which gave government endorsement to a report, largely written by City figures, which failed to offer any sustained criticism of the disastrous way in which an under-regulated City had been allowed to bring about the financial collapse of 2007/8. It was a classic example of how the great bulk of the London political class have become a mouthpiece for City interests, proposing largely cosmetic reforms for the banking system.

What the No campaign in the independence referendum seems to be offering is not "better together" but "more of the same", when the same means the continued subordination of economic policy to City interests - interests which have brought the economy to its present parlous state.

Jim Tomlinson,

Professor of Economic and Social History,

Lilybank House,

Bute Gardens,

University of Glasgow,

Glasgow.

There seems to be a misconception in some quarters ("First Minister on a PR campaign", Letters, September 17) that Alex Salmond has a role in the independence referendum campaign. He does not. That, of course, is as it should be for a First Minister of a democratic country where there are substantial numbers on each side of the debate.

I understand that the leader of the Yes campaign is Blair Jenkins, and that the leader of the Better Together campaign is Alistair Darling. What Mr. Salmond has is a vote, just like the rest of us: no more, no less.

Michael Otter,

Smithy House,

Oldshoremore,

Rhiconich,

Lairg.

Another gloomy economic report about how bad things are going to be after a Yes vote ("Economy emerges as key independence battleground", The Herald, September 18). No doubt it will not be the last. But who would expect the process of establishing an independent Scotland - which is exactly what we shall be voting about - to be either instant or painless? Some post-referendum timescale is necessary.

Surely any sensible approach to predicting the consequences would at the very least involve dividing them into short term and long term?

If it is going to be pain and uncertainty for decades to come, then only zealots for independence are going to vote Yes. Most people may accept that there will be some short-term pain, but will need to see some advantages in the medium term other than making our own decisions, however laudable that aim may be.

There has been a heavy focus on the fiscal consequences of separation, but is it really important whether each of us is £500 a year better or worse off?

People are naturally afraid of the unknown and want to be reassured that everything will be OK, but life isn't that simple.

It is unlikely that we shall see anything but a relentlessly negative approach from Better Together - they are the No campaign, after all. Therefore it is up to the Yes side to produce an honest and considered list of the major problems along with mechanisms and a timescale for their resolution.

It has been pointed out that the history of the independence referendum is on a very short-time scale - virtually unimaginable 40 years ago and propelled to the fore by the Scottish elections of 2007 and 2011. Is this too rapid for the average person to digest?

Caution may be the driving force behind the high No responses in polls and it is understandable that people who might have some sympathy with the idea of independence need some realistic reassurance.

Jim Morrison,

30 Pendicle Road,

Bearsden.