BILL Brown (Letters, July 20) pleads for more openness and transparency in the campaigning from both sides of the independence debate.

This is something the Yes campaign has striven earnestly to achieve. Where an existing UK arrangement seems to work well, we have suggested that it be retained after independence. Examples are that we continue to share the monarchy, the pound 
sterling and some minor functions. This is exactly equivalent to pointing out that an alternative arrangement would not be advantageous, as Mr Brown requests.

In contrast, the No campaign has produced screeds of demands for answers to questions, most of which are either trivial or impossible to answer until negotiations start – and the UK Government refuses to start even the most superficial of negotiations. The No campaign has churned out masses of material which threatens dire consequences if Scots dare to take control of their own finances. These threats repeatedly turn out to be at least partially bonkers, such as the loss of our AAA rating (which the UK promptly lost because of the worsening economic shambles organised by Westminster) and the border posts nonsense (while Prime Minister David Cameron is busy negotiating relaxation of border controls with Ireland).

The independence movement, ever since the devolution referendum vote in 1979, has been seriously compromised by misinformation from Westminster politicians over the last 40 years. The No campaign is trying to repeat the process of destroying the self-confidence that Scots need in order to vote Yes in 2014.

Mr Brown complains that both campaigns "push their own lines and expect us to vote with our eyes wide shut". All that is required is to examine the evidence and use a little common sense. Why is London so desperate to cling on to Scotland? Why should Scots not be perfectly capable of running our own affairs in such a way that we don't need to participate in foreign wars, don't need to borrow £10bn a month to survive and don't see our NHS privatised as is happening right now south of the Border?

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road,

Lenzie.

Bill Brown's comments come as a breath of fresh air in this prolonged pre-referendum campaign.

Analytical, frank and open non-emotional examination of the real issues at stake, by both No and Yes camps, would facilitate the journey to a responsibly balanced decision. Surely we can all share a passion for Scotland's welfare, no matter what conclusions we draw from the current flawed process. Mutual respect stands in marked contrast to the prejudiced aggressive reactions from too many on both sides of the discussion in recent months.

The actual decision, to be sound, must not be distorted by sentiment, but rationally-based.

Our future generations will have to live with the consequences.

Andrew W Heatlie.

109 Hyndland Road,

Glasgow.

I AGREE with Bill Brown that the referendum debate should be both more magnanimous and open about the consequences for the people of Scotland. We differ only to the extent that I think the Unionist side must also promote the weaknesses and strengths of remaining in the Union, whereas Mr Brown is content that, "as we have experienced it all our lives", the status quo need do 
nothing, the onus being all on the Yes side.

Three areas are mentioned, oil revenues, border crossings, and currency. Oil prices are purported to be terrifyingly volatile: however Scotland's economic output per capita is virtually identical to the rest of the UK, even with oil taken out of the equation. It would account for around 15% of an independent Scottish GDP, as opposed to Norway's 35%, showing clearly that – despite the scare stories – Scotland would not be wholly reliant on a dwindling resource, albeit one with a further 50 years of extraction on current known reserves.

Borders with passport controls, and the ensuing disruption to both trade and travel, are also a constant plank of the pro-Unionist campaign. It is interesting that David Cameron and Taoiseach Enda Kenny are to announce a London/Dublin initiative to extend the existing Common Travel Area (CTA), in effect creating a miniature Schengen area, that 
will allow even more freedom of travel to both tourists and business travellers. For Home Secretary Theresa May to face north and preach barbed wire while the Prime Minister is facing west preaching open gates is surely a signal that the debate is not being conducted in a frank, honest manner.

A similar effect occurs at the mention of currency union. The Chancellor obfuscates about Westminster entering into a pact regarding the pound, a currency union apparently being unworkable without political union despite the experience of many ex-Common­wealth countries. I do not think any serious commentator would believe that, post-independence, Westminster would refuse to enter a currency union that would be in its interests, just as much as Scotland's, not least in continuing the free flow of trade, and underpinning the balance of payments.

It is in Westminster's remit to give answers to these and other questions, but it has refused to enter any pre-negotiations prior to the referendum result.

That open and informed debate we should be having is stunted by this refusal, and appears to be in contravention of Mr Cameron's preferred option of pre-negotiations with the EU prior to the United Kingdom's in/out referendum proposed for 2017. It is my belief that this choice has been made because the correct answers to these questions would undermine the foundations of the No campaign, leaving little else but sentiment on which to base its offensive.

Finally, I do wish that this conflation of the SNP with the Yes campaign would cease; there are people of all persuasions and none who will be placing their cross in the hopes of being able to determine their own future, with a government of their own choosing, in common with almost all of the world's nations. And indeed why not?

Stuart Black,

62 South Mains Road,

Milngavie.

IF Alex Salmond and his party of merry men (and women) win the independence referendum, I am sure we will all realise that his stance on the issue of men-only golf clubs was the factor that swayed the voters. After all, it appears to be a front-page-worthy issue close to the hearts of senior politicians from all other parties.

N Jones,

Glendower,

Barrhead.