DUE credit to Alex Salmond for taking on the ice bucket challenge recently.

Given that much of his campaign rhetoric has been based on his "Team Scotland " fighting for Scotland's interests against "Team Westminster" it is strange that he chose to wear a Black Watch T-shirt for the occasion. How well does he know his Scottish history ?

The Black Watch was the British Army's first Highland regiment. A company of the Black Watch, under Captain Dugald Campbell of Auch­rossan, fought on the left wing of the British Army at Culloden against Highlanders, some bearing broad­swords with inscriptions "Schotlande" (for they were made in German-speaking areas ) or "Scotland" and "No Union".

That battle and the Jacobite campaign leading up to it had also set Scot against Scot. There is no evidence that the many Scots in Cumberland's army, including those in the Black Watch (or 43rd Highlanders ) did not take part in the butchery and pillage of the rebel areas that followed.

If Prince Charles Edward Stuart had been willing to accept Scotland as his kingdom and not marched south to Derby there could have been a settlement then, with Charles or his father ruling Scotland and a Scottish Parliament restored. Instead he set out to overthrow the established order on a false prospectus, leading only to wasted years, misdirected effort and neglect of challenges and problems common to all British people. Lasting bitterness ensued.

The them and us the nature of the Yes campaign has a similar resonance, dividing families and areas as the pollsters identify one or other part of the country likely to vote one way or another.

With the devolved powers that exist and the promise of more if there is a No vote, why was there not the latter option on the ballot paper? A combination of the rhetoric of the Yes leaders and the lack of a middle way formally on offer has shown up an all-round lack of competence and vision in those managing this referendum. We may pay dearly.

As Samuel Taylor Coleridge said in 1831: "If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us. But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us."

Bill MacDonald,

2 Harmony Court, Bonnyrigg.

WILLIAM Paterson of Dumfries was the architect of the ill-fated Darien Scheme of 1698, a banker, who as one of the founder members of the Bank of England in 1695, tried to encourage both English and Scots investors to back his idea of a colony on the isthmus of Panama to shorten the transworld sea route to India. The East India Company prevailed upon the English investors to withdraw their support and the rest is history. With the failure of the scheme, Scotland's coffers were reduced to zero - Scotland was bankrupted through this outrageous gamble.

By devious means, England was able to coerce the Scottish establishment , the aristocracy and land owners, excepting Fletcher of Saltoun and Lord Belhaven, to sign the Treaty of the Union of 1707, much to the chagrin of the common people who had no say in their loss of sovereignty. One English wag was heard to retort: "We have catched them and will not let them go." Thus the case has been set for 307 years.

In 1929 and again in 2008, financial markets crashed due to the gambling risks taken by the banking fraternity. Politicians through their governance have allowed bankers to operate in such a manner that has put the financial security of the UK at great risk. These same people have emptied the pockets of the poor to recoup their losses.

There are parallels to these three crashes, at the moment, again orchestrated by politicians, lawyers and bankers - no-one has been held accountable.

Meanwhile a desire by Scots to grasp a once-in-a-millennium opportunity, to make a fairer and more equitable society, is meeting obfuscation at every turn.

As a contributor to the BBC's Thought for Today once remarked, "beware of men in dark suits".

Denis A Nicol,

Barcaldine,

Strathearn Terrace,

Crieff.

IT was good to hear Gordon Brown's speech and then the positive contributions from the three UK party leaders ("Union turns the heat on Yes", The Herald , September 11). Every opinion poll has shown that the majority of Scottish voters want what the three parties are offering, namely more local powers (tax, welfare, borrowing) while staying within the UK for sound economic reasons.

We can protect the NHS in Scotland; yes, let's raise income tax on the higher paid to pay for extra health care if we want to do so, and also benefit from business and trade with our largest trading partner, the rest of the UK - let us not forget that exports there are double the rest of the world put together.

By adopting this approach we don't have to adopt a complicated sterlingisation / currency board / new Scots currency, with all the problems that entails for our savings and pensions - we simply use the Bank of England. Oh, and jobs won't go south, taken there by all those large employers who would need to move to their largest customer and most important regulator if there is a Yes. Well done Mr Brown for opening the way for full devolution.

Phil Wheeler,

18 Templeland Road,

Corstorphine, Edinburgh.

A CONNECTION has been made between the rise in the number intending to vote No and the devolution offers made by Gordon Brown and the Westminster party leaders. The terms devo-max, home rule and federalism have all now been used to describe the changes proposed, and Gordon Brown called them "new powers as ambitious as possible". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Tory and Labour proposals still rule out any further devolution of energy, immigration, and equalities policy, and leave Trident on the Clyde. Within the economic and employment spheres Scotland is only being offered Westminster's failed Work Programme, which got less than one per cent of the disabled people on its programme into long-term work. Both Conservatives and Labour have rejected any major devolution of welfare benefits and pensions. Their proposed devolution of housing benefit and attendance allowance would leave Westminster controlling more than 87 per cent of Scotland's welfare spending.

As for tax powers, under the existing Labour proposals to partially devolve income tax, the UK Government would retain power over 79 per cent of the taxes raised in Scotland. Even the complete devolution of income tax would still leave Westminster with total control of more than 70 per cent of Scottish taxes, including power over corporation tax, oil revenues, national insurance and VAT.

Scotland must not be deceived by a grossly exaggerated picture of devolved tax and welfare proposals. The fact is that we would still be left with UK power-max. Despite all of the rhetoric, the reality is that the choice remains between little change to the current arrangements, which have served Scotland badly, or independence which offers the potential for a better future.

Andrew Reid,

Armadale, Shore Road,

Cove, Argyll.