It is unlikely rUK would want to subsidise our renewable energy

The problem with energy, as with the currency and EU membership, is that the nationalists insist that all the advantages of the arrangements Scotland enjoys as part of the Union will continue. At the same time, however, all the disadvantages the nationalists see in these arrange­ments will disappear, thanks to the enlightened rule of an independent Scottish Government.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that pigs might fly, but few investors will be betting hard cash on the rosy scenario presented by the Commission on Energy Regulation.

Scottish renewable development has only been possible because of billions of pounds of subsidy and infrastructure spending by the UK Government. Generating renewable energy in Scotland continues to require high levels of consumer subsidy and cannot compete with cheaper electricity from Europe. It is hard to imagine energy suppliers paying over the odds for Scottish renewable energy, let alone an rUK government requiring its hard-pressed voters to subsidise electricity generation in a country which has turned its back on the Union.

Linda Holt,

Dreel House, Pittenweem, Anstruther.

IAIN Macwhirter argues that "Scots have yet to appreciate, perhaps, the finality of a No vote" ("Thinking the unthinkable when No really means No", The Herald, July 10). On the contrary, the great majority who are comfort­able with being Scottish and British, or, dare I say it, just British, have looked into the abyss that is independence, and are fully aware of what they are proposing to do on September 18. They probably do not, unlike Mr Macwhirter, obsess about further devolution of powers. What matters to them is their current and future standard of living, and the security, comfort and happiness of their families. The SNP were on the road to defeat early on when they alienated hundreds of thousands of residents with family in the diaspora. The party and its leaders refused to support a vote for native Scots living and working in rUK and abroad. Instead the Scottish Government chose to run the referendum on the European Parliament electoral roll in order to enfranchise temporarily resident foreigners, but not similarly-placed Brits. That blatant cynical opportunism seems to have backfired.

But the issue goes much further than that. The SNP, the First Minister and Finance Secretary John Swinney have failed woefully to make a convincing and feasible economic, political and cultural case. But the dangers of independence continue to pile up.

Research just released by the Swiss bank UBS argues that, in the event of a Yes vote, investors (many of them residents like me) would quickly start withdrawing deposits from the Scottish banks, because such deposits would not (and should not) be guaranteed by the Bank of England ("Salmond and Darling TV debate two days after Games", The Herald, July 10). Economic contraction would ensue as the money supply fell drastically. This happened in Quebec for several months even after the province narrowly voted to remain in Canada in 1995. Similarly, funds flooded out of Slovakia and into the Czech Republic after the 1993 break-up of Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, the online estate agent, eMoov, predicts a fall in property prices in Scotland of possibly 20% after a Yes vote, as people and firms move out, but fewer immigrate to offset this.

You would have to be purblind and Anglophobic to contemplate with equanimity the risks and conse­quences of independence, when the only payback would be for the political class on the gravy-train and its client state. At its core is that all the SNP amounts to? Surely not.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.

IAIN Macwhirter seems to be recoiling at the settled will of the people even before they have voted No in the coming referendum .

He suggests that "remaining in the Union means remaining with managed decline as Scotland's population ages [and] educated workers leave". I would have thought that since official figures reveal that between 2010 and 2035 the number of Scottish households headed by someone aged 65 and over will increase by 60%, this would be, for many, a good reason in itself not to go it alone.

I understand that during the same period the figure for those aged 85 and over actually doubles. Apart from the fact that these citizens will be drawing pensions from the UK Government and unlikely to be part of the Scottish workforce, they will increasingly be using the health services in a funded NHS Scotland and in some cases England. The health profile of many people in Scotland involving the chronic effects of obesity and alcohol abuse will only compound the demand.

I fail to follow his suggestion that educated workers would leave after a No vote. While I am not clear what is meant by "educated workers" I am certain workers will stay or leave with the same frequency they have always done. The idea that indepen­dence would make them remain represents a fanciful clutching at straws. Does Mr Macwhirter have no concerns if non-educated workers leave?

His article concludes by ominously proposing that after the No vote "Scots will have to find another way to shuffle the pack". I assume what he meant was not the Scots, but the SNP. I expect he conveniently forgets that the political activists who stirred up all this attempted unrest are very much in the minority. These agitators will merge back into the background after September while everyone gets back to their lives as I will, often freely moving about the familiar UK as if it were my own house.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

THERE has been considerable discussion already regarding the No campaign's reluctance to participate in debate throughout Scotland. The Yes movement group based in Troon has experienced it first hand.

We recently held a very successful debate attended by more than 500 people in Troon Concert Hall. Representing the Yes side we had Robin McAlpine (Jimmy Reid Foundation) and Ivan McKee (Business for Scotland). Putting the No argument were Professor Dan Wright (businessman) and John Scott (local Conservative MSP). The Yes Troon group was delighted that both these gentlemen were prepared to put their case for the continuance of the Union. Although Better Together appears to think such debates are traps set by the Yes movement, nothing could be further from the truth. The format of the Troon debate was completely in accordance with the tradition of political hustings within our country.

Originally the Yes Troon group was very keen to attract No representatives from both Left and Right. As I was one of the main organisers I contacted a host of individuals within the Labour Party or with affiliations, prominent on both a local and a national level, to invite them to take part. Not one of the individuals contacted agreed to take part. All claimed other engage­ments.

Councillor Philip Saxton (South Ayrshire and Troon) told me that no-one from the Labour Party was willing to attend as the No campaigners have their own meetings. Indeed we know that Labour in Ayr hosted a number of one-sided meetings featuring only Labour politicians. The public were able to attend through registration.

The lack of engagement by the Labour Party in any meaningful debate is a very worrying aspect of the referendum campaign and does not bode well for future elections.

So where does this leave us? I see two possibilities why this is happening. It could be, as with David Cameron's refusal to debate with Alex Salmond, the No campaign is running scared as it has nothing positive to say about the Union. Or we are witnessing the diminution of the democratic process outwith the corridors of power. Either way, to ensure we enhance and nurture our democracy we need a Yes vote on September 18.

Geoff Caldwell,

23 Fullarton Drive,

Troon.

THE No Campaign keep saying that a Yes vote is a vote for Alex Salmond. It isn't.

A Yes vote is a vote which will enable the people of Scotland to decide how they wish Scotland to be run in the future.

After independence there will be fresh elections for each of us to decide which political party we want to run Scotland. The big difference is that we will no longer be forced by Westminster to accept policies we don't agree with, or would not have voted for, had they been within our control.

In an independent Scotland, every decision will be taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by those of us who live in Scotland. It really is that simple.

Carole Inglis,

Lochview House,

Harlosh, Dunvegan,

Isle of Skye.