Referendum debate tugs at both heartstrings and purse strings

There is no prospect of a newly independent Scotland gaining early entry to the EU or the euro financial system. That means there would be a customs-secure border between England and Scotland, which would be appallingly bad for tourism, trade and industry.

Perhaps, it is claimed that by the Yes campaign, "after a few years things would settle down" - but the new and unavoidable Scottish currency could not possibly gain ready international acceptance. To put it in simple terms, Scots could look forward to having to buy their holiday currency, at considerably-increased cost, and probably an annual holiday in Spain would become unaffordable.

If one then looks at the cost of mortgages, a similar picture emerges. All governments borrow money in the international markets and Scotland benefits from the Triple A rating of the UK, which gives the lowest of interest rates and is available to only the top established economies. A newly independent Scotland and its financial institutions would only be able to fund their borrowing at much higher rates. It is difficult to see mortgage rates rising by less than 5% above those in the rest of the UK. That would mean that a Scottish family, with a mortgage of £100,000, would have to find an extra £5000 per annum just to keep a roof over their head.

Being part of the United Kingdom is a great benefit to Scotland and whatever the nationalists say independence would bring no prospect of any short-term benefits - and only the certainty of hugely increased risks.

It is clear that neither Europe nor the UK welcomes the prospect of Scotland as an independent nation of five million people, isolated on the extreme fringe of Europe. Accordingly, there will be no inclination to fast-track an independent Scotland either into the EU or the eurozone.

Laurence D Grainger,

Mid-Balfunning,

Balfron.

It is time the Scottish people understood that the constant barrage of negativity and scaremongering from the Better Together is designed for just one purpose - to persuade or frighten us into voting No in the forthcoming referendum. If we believe in the vision of taking full charge of our own affairs and creating a better and fairer Scotland we will produce a resounding majority for independence.

The three Unionist parties will then have no option but to change tack and engage in proper and meaningful negotiations. Of course, these will be tough and wide-ranging, but the basis will be to agree the arrangements that will be in the best interests of both Scotland and the remaining parts of the UK, rather than one side laying down the law and expecting the other to fall in line.

It should also be realised that there will be no dramatic changes on the first day after the September vote. Scotland will still be part of the UK, still in the EU and Nato, still be using the pound within a sterling currency union, and in all other respects have the same legal status as before. All the problems the No Campaign keep bringing up would only happen after actual independence took place, and most of them should have been addressed and resolved during the negotiations.

The somewhat ambitious target date set by the Scottish Government for the transfer to full independent status is March 2016, but that may well have to be extended, depending on how much goodwill there is on both sides during the negotiations. And, of course, there is a UK General Election in May 2015, which might produce a different party in government or another coalition. But it is inconceivable that any UK government would take a totally negative approach on every matter under negotiation, especially if in doing so they would be damaging the best interests of their own people and businesses.

Governments are well used to hard bargaining, but also to being realistic in achieving amicable settlements. After a Yes vote, there is no reason why the subsequent negotiations on many issues should not reach mutually acceptable conclusions. Meantime, we should not be deterred or frightened by the prophesies of doom, gloom and despair from Project Fear.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

Richard Mowbray (Letters, March 3) comments disingenuously on the 800,000 Scottish people living in the rest of the UK, who will be denied the vote in the coming referendum. He does not take into account 50,000 plus English people who have settled in Scotland who will be entitled to vote.

Mr Mowbray's assertion that the economic flaws will lose Alex Salmond the referendum, and that he and his cohorts will seek a terrible revenge.

He goes on to say that blood and friendship ties count far more than the misguided agitations of a narrow political clique. What has changed? His comment (Letters, January 8) derogatively states "the mumbo- jumbo of blood, earth, kith and kin have historically defined the crudity of nationalism".

He is entitled to his opinion with regard to our First Minister. I don't think he understands the psyche of the Scottish people and how important the sense of identity is, leaving aside the economic arguments.

The English Alien Act of 1705, in response to Scotland's Act of Security of 1704, stated that all Scottish nationals would be treated as aliens. This also included an embargo of Scottish goods being important into England and their colonies. This was at a time when Scotland was bankrupt following the disastrous Darien adventure. This situation was exacerbated by the English government's refusal to offer any kind of support to the Scottish nation which was on its knees following this debacle.

In November 1704, Lord Godolphin stated that it was far better to bring the Scots into a union with England through economic pressure.

Fast forward to 2014. Is this history repeating itself? Messrs Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexander are applying the very same economic pressures to keep Scotland in the Union, and will go to any lengths to keep our oil and whisky revenues flowing into Westminster.

J MacArthur,

7 Shore Street,

Portnahaven, Islay.

Liz Gray (Letters, March 5) wonders why Richard Mowbray believes that Scots living outwith Scotland (apparently some 800,000 in England alone) should have a vote in the referendum which she considers should be purely for people living in Scotland to decide. This appears to be a matter of principle to her and not the rather dubious administrative difficulty argument advanced by Nicola Sturgeon who said that it would be "complicated". For what it's worth, my view is that Liz Gray is taking a far too parochial view and Ms Sturgeon is hardly inspiring confidence in her ability to administer the inevitably "complicated" affairs of an independent Scotland.

I believe the outcome of the referendum is of such momentous importance that the proper exercise of democracy requires that all Scots should have the opportunity to vote irrespective of residence, and perhaps the Mses Gray and Sturgeon should pay some heed to the 2011 Venice Commission Report from the European Commission For Democracy Through Law which reported that it is commonplace for countries to provide non-resident nationals with so-called "out of country" voting rights of one sort or another. Surely that is a more open and democratic approach?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

Mary Rooks (Letters, March 3) makes an impassioned plea that we remain as part of the UK and says that a vote for independence would be a rejection of our relatives who live in England and a rejection of their Scottish identity. I think this is a very negative viewpoint. I intend to vote Yes for what I see as a very positive reason. I want the people of Scotland to take responsibility for the political decisions that will affect their lives. Why is this wish, that we assume this responsibility, interpreted as hostility and rejection?

An independent Scotland would want friendly relations with all of our neighbours, especially the one which is geographically closest to us - England.

With our ambition for self-determination we are not trying to deny anyone their sense of identity but rather, we are simply trying to affirm our own. I have close family in England and regard the result of the referendum as irrelevant to my continuing relationship with them. Whatever happens in September, family is family.

Mary Rooks also makes the common mistake of assuming that Yes supporters are SNP supporters. The Yes campaign has attracted support across the political spectrum in Scotland and I, for one, was an active member of the Labour Party for many years. I will not be voting for the SNP on September 18, but will be voting for Scotland to be a nation state.

Sean McGarvey,

29 Myretoungate,

Alva.