ISOBEL Lindsay (Letters, September 10) says she doesn't mind "fantasy politics".

But the trade union negotiators, elected politicians and social scientists who make up the bulk of the Red Paper authors she castigates, very much do. Their stock in trade is realism. In the case of some of my fellow contributors this is sometimes prefaced with "blunt" or even "hard-nosed". The politics of fantasy are a luxury they and those they represent cannot afford.

Ms Lindsay decries the Red Paper Collective for suggesting that extra powers should be exercised by the Scottish Parliament whilst believing other powers are more appropriately exercised at UK level. For socialists, constitutional arrangements and questions of national identity, even when significant, are of secondary importance. Indeed had she had the chance to see Pauline Bryan and Tommy Kane's article (Herald Agenda, September 10) she would have realised that implicitly, and often explicitly, it is the lack of use of already-existing powers that is being criticised by the Red Paper's contributors.

That said, to be meaningful at all, some arguments need to be won at UK level. Take for instance Ms Lindsay's example of Scotland being dragged "into endless wars". Let's leave aside that some wars can be stopped - who would have doubted a few weeks ago that the UK would by now be bombing Syria (incidentally the number of Scottish MPs voting against war comfortably exceeds the number by which the Government was defeated)? - and accept her premise for a moment. An independent Scotland wouldn't change the actions of the rest of the UK. Nationalist campaigners for peace could of course smugly maintain that the war being waged was nothing to do with them. Internationalists, however, will be aware that it is making the difference, not posing on the moral high ground, that matters. That in turn requires changing the UK, not opting out from the struggle for change.

Ms Lindsay asserts that the referendum offers an opportunity to create "a strong social democratic Scotland". This may be Ms Lindsay's ambition, but it does stand in contrast to that of Alex Salmond. He has been happy to declare that "we're much more sympathetic to business than Westminster". It is an agenda the SNP is happy to promote in welcoming the corporation tax cuts of George Osborne and promising, come independence, to go further.

Stephen Low,

59 Calder Street,

Govanhill, Glasgow.

I WATCHED the latest Scottish Questions from Westminster on television with both astonishment and anger as Unionist MPs as part of the Project Fear campaign cast doubt on an independent Scotland's ability to fund pensions. This is despite the fact that pensions would be much more affordable within an independent Scotland than under the bankrupt state of the Union.

When National Insurance contributions were introduced the idea was sold to the electorate that their contributions would be wisely invested to ensure a healthy pension for everyone on retirement; instead what happened was that successive Labour and Tory governments used these contributions as current spending and not a penny was invested. This shuffled the problem down the road to the next government, which in turn did the same and passed the problem on. This has been going on for decades. If a private insurance company operated this way I would like to think the directors would all be in jail but perhaps, if they were situated in the City of London, that idea is fanciful.

The problem has now come to a head as the baby boomers are at retirement age and the workforce is not making large enough contributions to cover up the shortfall. The situation is further worsened by the huge debt that the UK has run up and which is increasing every day to the point that when this Parliament ends George Osborne will have doubled the UK debt total in one term. People fail to understand how serious all this is. He has managed to cut the deficit a little, but all his cuts have not reduced the debt by a penny.

So when I turned on my TV to listen to those responsible for this gigantic mess telling Scotland that they could look after our pensions better than we could manage I hope people will understand my anger. Sooner or later this issue is going to explode and as independence offers the only hope I am reminded of the tactic being used here by Westminster: "If you are going to lie, lie big."

Iain M Lawson,

27 Ben Lui Drive,

Paisley.

SANDY Gemmill (Letters, September 11) believes that the next generation will pay for his pension.

He's in for a nasty shock, then, when he retires and finds out that the pension he receives will be based, not on the amount they are generously stumping up, but entirely on what he has contributed to his own, individual, pension "pot". No matter how much the next generation is paying into the fund, if Mr Gemmill hasn't contributed much to his own record, he won't get much of a pension.

This is completely different from all other benefits, where individual pots are not accrued, and is why Iain Mann (Letters, September 10) is right and we have all been conned.

Helen Quigley,

13 Findhorn Place,

Edinburgh.

FINANCE Secretary John Swinney is pressing the case for independence in his budget after announcing a £145m saving on the Queensferry Crossing ("Swinney to unveil £30bn plan", The Herald, September 11.

Welcome to the land of SNP smoke and mirrors. This is spin of the highest order. There are no savings on the Queensferry Crossing. The original cost projections were wrong, out by £145m. But what the heck, it is public money, part of a £1.5bn project. What's a few hundred million here or there?

Do you want a Government and a Finance Secretary who think that errors in cost projections can be called savings when they are corrected?

Wanna buy a bridge?

John Black,

The Scottish Jacobite Party,

6 Woodhollow House,

Helensburgh.

I IMAGINE that Mr Salmond is not too happy with his six MSPs breaking ranks ("Six SNP members defy party whip in jailed MSPs pay vote", The Herald, September 11) by opposing the motion to dock pay of an imprisoned or remanded MSP. His main concern should be why there is even any vote on whether Bill Walker or any MSP should receive even 10% of their pay if he or she is imprisoned.

I cannot think of anyone else who receives an income from their employer whilst serving a prison sentence, although I am not surprised that the mindset in Holyrood is that some such payment should be made to an MSP given the time the elected representatives apparently spent at the inception of the Scottish Parliament on how much they should pay themselves and how many allowances they should receive for the paltry amount of time they spend doing their job.

The only matter still open to question is how much of a pension Mr Walker will receive? I will not be holding my breath to await the answer to that question.

John M Wilson,

Police House,

Main Street,

Houston.