It is a myth that it was the UK Government that saved banks

We now know banks are bailed out on the basis of where they have economic assets and business activity, the demise of which would lead to contagion in the local and global financial system. In RBS's case this was London. There are numerous other examples of this.

Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £552.32 billion (at backdated exchange rates) by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government.

In the case of Barclays, it fell to the US to support the bank because they were one of the single largest purchasers of US Government debt, so the problem was the US Government's and not the UK taxpayer's alone. The US intervened so that its debt market didn't collapse and to prevent broader consequences for America's economy and society.

It's worth also noting that the UK Government bailout of RBS and HBOS amounted to £65bn. That's a lot of money, but the US Federal Reserve made emergency loans available to RBS of £285bn and to HBOS of £115bn.

The US bailed out these UK banks too, in the same way as Scottish taxpayers contributed to liquidity support for international banks based in London (including American ones).

Lindsay Scott ,

Thornhill Road, Falkirk.

SIR Tom Devine suggests that in the event of a No vote the SNP might regret not having a devo-max question ("'SNP may regret rejecting third option'", The Herald, September 5). In the event that the public rejects independence it will indeed be regrettable that there is no mandate to extend devolution to its maximum potential; however, the fact is that a second question was never an option because the UK Government made no such question a condition of allowing the referendum.

That they did this shows the lie to the claim that there will be a real extension of devolution following a No vote. If they truly supported more devolution why did they fight so hard to keep it off the ballot? Given the promise of "more powers guaranteed" I don't doubt there will be a symbolic extension of devolution, to not do that would be to lose face, but real extension? I think not.

The Unionist parties have each published proposals for more devolution, proposals that vary in quality. Ironically the Conservatives may well have the best proposal while Labour has the worst, doing nothing more than changing the numbers on Calman's tax proposals and giving no power to set the tax base or any kind of credit or exemption, the party's Scottish MPs having refused to countenance the real devolution of anything more. The parties, however, in their push for a united front seem to have settled on something close to Labour's proposals. That means no real extension of devolution.

The only way to guarantee more powers for Scotland is to vote Yes.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View, Glasgow.

IN response to Tristram C Llewellyn Jones (Letters, September 4), cross-border arrangements for air traffic control are not the major obstacle that his letter implies.

I suspect that Mr Jones, if he is an expert in this field, must already be aware of the Maastricht Upper Area Control Centre (MUAC) which provides cross-border air traffic control services in the upper airspace (above 24,500 feet, or 7,500 metres) of Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and north-west Germany.

Operational since 1972, MUAC controls some 1.5 million flights per year in one of the most dense and complex and most complex areas in the world.

I fail to see why Mr Jones thinks it would be so hard to achieve a similar model of operation at the Prestwick Air Traffic Control centre.

Mike Peddie,

3 Whiteside Park,

Monkton,

Prestwick.

NATIONALISTS have long claimed that social justice would be improved in an independent Scotland, and education has to be one of the most important tools in achieving this. Yet this Government presides over a totally inequitable education system and refuses to address the situation.

The funding of state schools across Scotland is completely unfair and actually favours children in more affluent areas. For example, school staffing levels are higher in East Renfrewshire than they are in East Ayrshire, despite the much higher levels of deprivation in the latter. Just one of the reasons for the high levels of achievement in East Renfrewshire's schools?

When professional organisations have repeatedly drawn this to the attention of the SNP administration there has been no interest in redressing the inequality. Free higher education has been achieved at the expense of the further education sector, which has been slashed and burned. This favours higher socio-economic groups, who dominate the higher education sector, at the expense of the more disadvantaged.

The much-vaunted Curriculum for Excellence has so far had the effect of reducing mathematical attainment in primary schools (7 per cent in primary four and 6 per cent in primary seven), undermining all pupils' future prospects. And now we are told that the gap in attainment between the private and state sectors is the widest it has ever been.

Quite bluntly, actions speak louder than words. The increasing inequity in our education system tells you everything you need to know about the faith you can place in a nationalist government to increase social justice.

Carole Ford,

Former President, School Leaders Scotland,

132 Terregles Avenue,

Glasgow.

THE Goldman Sachs analysis of the impact on the Scottish economy of a Yes vote at the forthcoming referendum comes as no surprise to those of us who regard the prospect of leaving the UK as extreme folly ("Warning UK faces a currency crisis if Scots vote Yes", The Herald, September 4). In his efforts to push his side over the 50 per cent victory line by championing the cause of society's disenchanted, the First Minister has failed to recognise the increasing anger of the No camp, especially the vast rump of Scotland's wealth creators, asset-holders, and "movers and shakers" who remain bitterly opposed to separation.

It is surely obvious that there will an alarming flight of capital from Scotland to London in the 18 months between a Yes vote and secession from the Union; the value of which will dwarf that of the entire Scottish GDP. On top of this, the SNP's threat to renege on our UK debt commitments will backfire spectacularly, leaving our tiny, new state unable to underwrite borrowings from the international markets without crippling interest rates and the likely prospect of default.

The potential outcome is appalling, especially as we will go down with all hands on deck, irrespective of how we vote on the 18th.

Derek Miller,

Westbank,

West Balgrochan Road,

Torrance.

WHAT on earth is happening to our democracy when one side of the independence debate believes that the other side should not be heard? Last week we put up two "No Thanks" banners, both of which were removed or vandalised within 24 hours; I know that this has been a common occurrence throughout Scotland over the past few weeks. Our employees, when putting the signs up, were sworn at. Most alarmingly, in simply writing this letter and making our position known, I fear the vitriol and abuse we will receive.

Luss Estates Company firmly belongs in the No Thanks camp and absolutely believes in the benefits of the Union, but in fact this is almost irrelevant.

In my view, the First Minister's approach is fostering a one-party state mentality, where it is acceptable for No believers to be subjected to abuse and attempts to silence them. I wonder if he truly subscribes to Voltaire's famous quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

We live in a democracy. The First Minister's most important job is to protect democracy. Does he realise this? If not, and in the event of a Yes vote, I fear for a future independent Scotland.

Simon J Miller,

Chief executive officer,

Luss Estates Company,

Arnburn, Arden,

Luss, Alexandria.

CHARLES Kennedy's reported remarks on fellow elected party members aligning with the Yes campaign must be disappointing to many, and in particular Scottish Liberal Democrats who continue to canvas for a No vote ("Liberal Democrat councillor's decision 'not a blow to party'", The Herald, September 5).

The LibDems are perceived as staunch supporters of the Better Together campaign. Now with his philosophical acceptance of defectors Charles Kennedy has not best served remaining loyal party members but, more importantly, left the Scottish public confused as to the LibDems' true position on this important referendum issue.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue,

Giffnock.

I HAVE posted my referendum ballot paper. How lucky are we to be able to decide our future in such a civilised and - the odd egg notwithstanding - peaceful manner.

Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and countless other places where people die every day for the right to do this.

Yes or No, please make sure you vote.

Peter Kerr,

Quoynamoan,

Stenness,

Orkney.