No vote would mean an uncertain and possibly dangerous future

The SNP Government has indeed been highly effective in governing a devolved Scotland, but will find it increasingly difficult if Scotland votes no, for a number of reasons.

The tightening of spending controls across the UK, imposed either by the Coalition or by an incoming Labour Government, will give less and less freedom of manoeuvre for the Scottish Government to pursue its own distinctive policies which are in tune with the wishes of the Scottish people.

The professed aim of all three UK parties to replace the Barnett formula for determining Scottish funding raises alarming possibilities.

The Barnett formula has many drawbacks, notably that Scottish funding depends upon English departmental spending decisions irrespective of whether they are appropriate for Scotland, but it is relatively fair.

Labour wishes it to be replaced by a "needs-based" system, so that Scotland, which has made itself more successful and prosperous since devolution, will be rewarded by a diversion of its funding to more disadvantaged parts of the UK. Overall Scottish funding would therefore be cut further.

The idea that all UK parties are signed up to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament is somewhat optimistic. Only the Liberal Democrats have formulated any such plan; their long-held federal solution which depends on agreement from the rest of the UK, which is extremely unlikely to be given. Labour is talking about rolling back devolution, or at least about by-passing the Scottish Parliament, with its UK health spokesman suggesting a more unified UK-wide NHS. As for the Conservatives, does anyone seriously expect English Tories to support further powers for Scotland?

What the UK parties may agree on is increased tax-raising powers (or, rather, responsibilities) for Scotland. However, without control of all tax revenue, this is a very dangerous prospect. It is unlikely that we will be granted more than 30-40% of all tax-raising powers, and without a guarantee on the integrity of our total budget, we could find ourselves having to raise our taxes more and more to compensate for reduced Westminster funding, and the oil revenues would still keep pouring into London.

Devolution has been relatively successful for Scotland over the past 14 years, but with a No vote the future is extremely uncertain, and potentially disastrous.

Ian Grant,

2 Ashburnham Gardens, South Queensferry.

I WAS surprised that Harry Reid indicated that if we vote No in next year's referendum "there will be an immediate drive to enhance the devolution we already enjoy".

This seems a naive assumption. With the oil revenue secured, why would the interest of Scotland be given any priority? The much-larger south-east of England vote is unlikely to feel we should be given more devolution. There is more likely to be a call for a decrease in powers and a reduction of an incorrectly-perceived subsidy of Scotland.

The point is that if we do not take this opportunity to improve democracy for Scotland then, whatever adverse proposals are made for Scotland at Westminster, Scotland would not have a strong enough vote in Westminster to stop it, just as we couldn't stop the welfare cuts or bedroom tax.

Jim Stamper,

40 Burnside Road,

Rutherglen.

IT was intriguing to note the comments by Home Secretary, Theresa May, that Scotland will be vulnerable to a terrorist attack if we leave the Union and cross-border co-operation and intelligence sharing will be hindered ("Intelligence club 'could snub Yes Vote Scotland'", The Herald, October 30).

According to Ms May, in a rare journey north of the Border, Scotland simply won't be able to defend itself against the army of terrorists that will descend on what Westminster also claims will be a small, insignificant state devoid of London clout.

Scotland will also, it should be noted, be in the process of negotiating the removal of Trident nuclear weapons from the Clyde In addition, our troops will no longer be compelled to take part in the former UK's foreign adventures, which have made the UK such a pariah state in many parts of the world and thus open to terrorist attack.

In short, Scotland will be harmless in comparison with what remains of the UK, and why any terrorist would want to attack a nation that has just wrenched itself from the UK isn't explained. Scotland will most probably be rendered safer after a Yes vote than a No one.

It is also scarcely credible that both our nations will not continue to share intelligence information on security matters. The US shares intelligence with the UK, and many other countries share their intelligence to ensure that others are aware of any impending threat and yet, apparently, what remains of the UK would not do this with a post-independent Scotland.

The more the debate goes on the more one begins to wonder who the true "separatists" are, those wanting to continue to share information and co-operate with what remains of the UK post-independence or those wanting to pull up the drawbridge.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

HAVING received a copy of the SNP Yes Bulletin through my letter box, I must challenge the accuracy of the information therein.

The Bulletin indicates that a "sensational new poll" shows that the majority of people in Scotland back independence - it states that there is a 52% vote for Yes.

Do Alex Salmond and his team of spin doctors really believe that they can sell such balderdash to the Scottish voters? Do they think we are so gullible?

All of the respectable polls, including TNS BMRB, You Gov and Progressive Scottish Opinion are indicating that the most likely outcome in the referendum, from recent surveys, is No to an independent Scotland ranging from 44% to 52%. The Yes vote is on record as being in the range 25% to 27%.

The other feature in the Bulletin which caught my eye was a photograph of a slimline, younger version of Mr Salmond, sporting a golf club. If the SNP wishes to convince the people of Scotland that its cause has any relevance, it must present us with honest figures.

Robert IG Scott,

Northfield Cottage,

Cupar Road,

Ceres.