WE keep being told by UK ministers and Better Together spokesmen that Scotland will be much better off financially and economically within the "safety and security" of the United Kingdom.

Well, let's look at a few facts about how safe and secure Britain's financial position is, and what may happen in the next few years.

The UK national debt currently stands at around £1.3 trillion and is still rising. That figure does not include the £900 billion the Government borrowed to save the banks from collapse, nor of course does it include the massive amount of personal debt of the population in mortgages, loans and credit card interest.

The interest on the national debt is costing the UK Treasury about £1bn a week, and if the interest on the banks bail-out was included that would raise the borrowing cost to around £70bn a year - more than the entire annual budgets of UK defence and education combined.

And for some years the current international borrowing rates have been at relatively low levels - around two per cent compared with the more normal five per cent. If rates began to climb Britain would have to find even more annual cash, and the country would be standing on the brink of major financial collapse. Before the Greek economy collapsed it was borrowing at around one per cent - even less than the UK - but when it was no longer able to repay its debt mountain the interest rate shot up to 13 per cent within one year, the whole country imploded and was saved only by massive support from the rest of the European Union because it was part of the eurozone, which Britain is not.

The UK faces huge financial problems just in continuing to meet the annual interest on its national debt, never mind repaying the capital. Even with the current apparent improvement in the economy (much of which is due to the latest housing bubble rather than real growth) there is little or no chance of it being able to repay any significant amount in the foreseeable future.

The conclusion is, therefore, that Scotland would be much safer and more secure outside the United Kingdom rather than within it. And if denied any share of UK assets and therefore absolved from liability for its debts, our own national economy would have a much better chance of enjoying real and positive growth. The most perilous place to be would be remaining in a United Kingdom buried under an increasing mountain of unrepayable debt.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

ANENT the debate on whether Scottish companies would suffer commercial disadvantage under an independent Scotland, I note there is no general trend for Scottish share prices to be suffering in the run-up to the referendum.

If a Yes vote were perceived to be bad for business, surely the market would react in anticipation a possible Yes outcome and downgrade Scottish share values accordingly? The lack of such a market trend, I think, speaks for itself.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road,

Glasgow.

I WAS interested to read the letter from Lord Kilclooney (August 28) pointing out the problem of going down the sterlingisation route as followed by the Irish Free State. His assertion that the Bank of England did not take account of the different southern Irish economy is, of course, true.

Is he really trying to suggest that the UK Government and the Bank of England take any account of the economy of Scotland at present?

Stewart McCormick,

43 Main Road,

Elderslie.

Yesterday I was watching TV when a heart-breaking appeal came on for starving children in Africa .A few ad breaks later a Save The Children appeal, fronted by Paul O'Grady, came on asking for £2 a month to help hungry children in Britain whose parents - the poor and the working poor - were going without in order to feed their children and were being forced to use food banks to provide basic necessities.

We hear constantly from the No campaign about the strength of the economy using "the broad shoulders of the UK". If this is better together you can keep it. I'm voting Yes and urge all compassionate people to do the same.

Anne Downie,

14 Muirburn Avenue,

Glasgow.

I NOTE with the interest the letter from Business for Yes, which has 200 signatories ("200 businesses sign up to say Yes to independence" and Letters, The Herald, August 28).

On Wednesday you reported on a open letter from "Big Business" which had 130 signatories ("Industry leaders say Yes vote fails the business test", The Herald, August 27). But if this a numbers game, what matters are much bigger numbers than just signatures. These include market capitalisation, turnover, value of exports, numbers of employees. By these yardsticks there is no contest.

Small business depends heavily on big business to thrive and prosper. Issues like exchange controls, transaction costs, import-export regulations, taxation all will have an adverse effect should Scotland vote for independence.

Scotland cannot rely on small service-sector businesses to generate the wealth and tax revenues to support itself in a highly competitive world and Scotland already has a large proportion of its workforce in the public sector.

Business for Yes spokesmen assert that in an independent Scotland business would have "more controls". What exactly does that mean? What really controls business are the markets, both national and international, and competition, external factors over which these service companies would have no control.

Could an SNP government, already running a £12.1 billion deficit, really afford low levels of corporation tax and business incentive schemes on top of all its welfare, pensions and benefits promises? I know whose opinions and judgments I believe and trust and that is why I will reject independence on September 18.

Stuart Smith,

West Lennox Drive,

Helensburgh.

I READ with interest the letter from those business leaders in favour of independence. Whilst I disagree with their stance there is one argument they make which is totally illogical, when they say "the real threat to Scotland is the real possibility of a British exit from the European common market".

If they have a real concern over Scotland being part of the EU, which is vital for UK business, they should be doing all they can to ensure Scotland remains part of the UK and then join the UK-wide debate in 2017.

If Scotland becomes independent, it will automatically no longer be part of the EU. The Scottish Government will be required to apply to join the EU.

In the interim, Scotland would be on the outside looking in. It would be left to the bureaucrats and lawyers to fight over this issue for years to come, with Scotland's businesses suffering due to the uncertainty. Additionally I fail to see how an independent Scotland would ever be allowed to join the EU as long as Spain is still part of the organisation. There are no circumstances in which Spain would ease Scotland's entry into the EU, as this would open the door to the Catalan region and the potential break-up of Spain.

Alan D Gray,

44 Springfield,

West Barns,

Dunbar.

A CAMEL has been compared to a horse designed by a committee. Similar comment applies to the SNP manifesto, which is a bizarre hybrid.

Keep the Bank of England, keep the pound against the will of those would require to share it, keep the monarchy, no nuclear weapons in Scotland but build nuclear-capable ships for the Royal Navy and join NATO, refuse to generate electricity in Scotland by nuclear means but belong to a grid system which will receive electricity generated by such means, and so on.

The Scottish nation will be the laughing stock of the planet. Who would want to do business with those camels?

The sub-groups within the SNP have fallen silent. Those who wish to have a Scottish currency, abolish the monarchy and refuse to join Nato have been told to remain silent meantime; and have obeyed.

William Durward,

20 South Erskine Park,

Bearsden.

DAVID C Purdie (Letters, August 27) is right to condemn personal abuse directed at Alex Salmond by those of a Unionist persuasion. It has been reiterated constantly that the debate is about independence and not personalities, and I am sure he will agree that personal abuse by those of a Yes persuasion directed at Better Together campaigners is also to be deplored. It does happen.

We can agree to differ without denigration or bile. Otherwise, pot, kettle and black come to mind.

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road,

Kilbirnie.

IT is disappointing that the star speaker in the independence debate so far has been Archie Macpherson ("Pundit Macpherson scores for No", The Herald, August 28).

His eloquent words in support of his No Thanks views were passionate and spoken with conviction. I cannot can't remember a politician from either standpoint being so thought-provoking.

Hopefully, it's not too late for other credible people to come forward and clearly lay out the benefits and pitfalls of independence before the irreversible decision is made.

Bob MacDougall,

Oxhill, Kippen,

Stirlingshire.