THE Yes campaign seems to be increasing the negativity of its efforts as it tries to claw itself into the referendum race, and there now appears to be a concerted effort to denigrate the achievements of the Labour Party.

One can only conclude that Yes has given up on the Don't Knows.

Two of your most recent correspondents, Dr Graeme Finnie and Catriona C Clark (Letters, July 14), are the latest to try to rewrite history, respectively telling your readers of "the dreadful record of Labour in power and their ineffec­tual role in opposition" and "Labour's commitment to continue the austerity cuts should they win power in 2015".

Labour's record in power included raising one million children in the UK out of poverty, establishing the national minimum wage, legislating for the right to trade union represen­tation, and a devolution to all parts of the UK (except England), plus the guaranteed income for pensioners. If that is dreadful, give me dreadful any day.

Ineffective opposition? Labour is well placed to win the 2015 General Election, and although Ed Miliband is obviously not going to be as wildly popular as Tony Blair, it appears that enough voters disagree with Dr Finnie to get him to No 10 in less than a year's time. If that is ineffective, I will take it any day.

It is also wrong to suggest that a Yes vote means an end to austerity. Aside from the dubious morality of running away from debt - incurred by Scotland as well as the rest of the UK - all of the evidence is that independence would actually leave Scots in a worse position than the rest of UK.

Even John Swinney in his leaked paper has admitted that it will be difficult to fund welfare (including pensions) from a position of an ageing population and declining oil revenues. If we add to this the commitment to use those revenues to set up an oil fund rather than on services and benefits, it is clear that an independent Scotland will require considerably higher taxation. With a further promise to lower taxation for the biggest companies, the only source of these higher revenues will be increased personal taxation: put simply, big hikes in income tax.

In contrast, as Labour head for the 2015 General Election, they are committed to making big reforms in the way in which the country is run, so that the economy works for society, rather than the other way round: reform of the banks, reform of welfare to ensure that all young people have the skills required in the labour market and that those who contribute more get more out of the system, and reform of government through further devolution to cities and local councils.

So readers should continue to regard any statements by the Yes camp with great scepticism, and certainly should ask themselves which they will prefer: Labour's responsible and measured approach through big reforms to meet the needs of the coming years, or the Yes Campaign's rewritten history - and its future promises which could only be funded by big tax rises.

Peter Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

DAVID Crawford (Letters, July 14) likens independence to a divorce. By his reckoning, England wants to "make the process as painful as possible". But the people of England have no say in this process; they await the decision at our pleasure, and then for some reason have to comply with our wishes. Why should they "keep the joint bank account"; is that usual in a divorce? Their interests aren't to let us draw on it to prop up Scottish banks, when we would not have the size to prop up theirs.

What is their obligation to be as nice as possible to a Scottish regime that had repudiated its share of the national debt, reduced Corporation Tax so it would always be three per cent lower than the English rate whatever that might be, and halved air passenger duty with the explicit purpose of tempting business away from north of England airports?

The reason that the south-east of England appears to "drive the agenda" is not a malevolent one on the part of the English. It is that London, for chance geographical reasons, has grown more than the rest of the UK; it generates more wealth and contributes more in tax, shared out across the UK. Good luck to Holyrood in altering that once we are independent and are bound by the rules and interest rates set in London, but have no say in altering them.

Neil Allan,

4 Dundarroch Road, Ballater.

WHILE I understand the hesitancy of Arthur WA Main's position created by independence, especially regarding family and kinship and the perceived strain put on it - " my London-born grandchildren and I shall become foreigners to each other" (Letters, July 14) - I cannot make sense of his conclusions and his simple remedy of "the preferred option of a well-considered, progressive devolu­tion of power, more stable and perhaps more widely acceptable solution to the wishes of the Scottish people".

There is no option of devo max available to Scottish voters on the ballot paper. David Cameron rejected that out of hand, describing it as "a consolation prize for Alex Salmond".

There are, I understand, some ideas in the air for further devolution. From the Scottish Labour Party there are going to be increased powers on personal income tax raised here (but only increased taxes, not reduced). From the Scottish Conservatives, a proposal to allow Scotland to collect all income tax in Scotland and to raise from (increased) personal taxation those extra sums which it wishes to spend in other ways, such as the mitigation of the bedroom tax and other social services. From the Liberal Democrats, a talking shop, the re-convening of the Constitutional Convention in the event of a No vote to consider where we go from here.

There is nothing firm, nothing guaranteed, nothing certain other than there will be no extra resources for Scotland and no mitigation of the UK Con-Dem austerity programme.

I remain open to challenge on this of course and hope against hope that the No campaign can come up with something other than slogans and vagueness on further devolution which the Scottish "reluctant No" and undecided voters can seriously consider before September 18.

If a No vote is the outcome, West­minster and David Cameron are entitled to say: "If the Scots wanted increased powers, they should have voted Yes." Increased devolution, devo max and its variants are a diversion and an illusion.

Ian McLaren,

27 Buchanan Drive, Lenzie.

PAUL Jowitt (Letters, July 12) suggests that because an independent Scotland would want to co-operate with rUK on a number of topics it would be just as well to vote No and continue as at present. That would be more acceptable if co-operation between Edinburgh and Westminster were on an equal basis. At present if Westminster wants to co-operate that's fine; it goes ahead. If West­minster doesn't want to co-operate, that's too bad and nothing happens.

A recent example concerns the legal level of alcohol for drivers. The Scottish Parliament has the powers to set the legal limit and wants to lower the level. Unfortunately, the power to recalibrate the breathalysers is retained in Westminster. The Home Office is of course "co-operating" but, in fact, it is not re-calibrating the equipment and so the Scottish Parliament's policy cannot be implemented. This is a relatively trivial example, but it demonstrates the limits on co-operation between unequal partners.

Hugh Boyd,

65 Antonine Road, Bearsden.

I WATCHED the Question Time programme on which Nigel Kirk Hanlin spoke of his support for the Union and of his commitment to dying for it ("Question Time man goes viral", The Herald, July 12) . I, however, did not find it a speech to be applauded . I found his contributions to be quite threatening. Had a Yes campaigner threatened to die to deliver independence I've no doubt the media would be referring to the bullying and threatening attitudes of the Yes campaign.

Like Mr Hanlin's, my grandfather died in the First World War and I know at first hand the distress and heartbreak that brought to my father. My grandfather died needlessly, as have many British soldiers throughout the ages and up to the present day. They fought in wars that were of importance to the rich and powerful but of no importance to the ordinary working man, but in none of them did they fight to defend the Union. Unlike Mr Hanlin, and in memory of my grandfather, I will not be supporting the Union, but will be voting Yes on September 18.

J Campbell,

43 Limeside Avenue, Rutherglen.