IT would be easy to dismiss Nicola Sturgeon's demand for a Scottish veto on leaving the EU as just another case of an SNP politician claiming that the tail should wag the dog ("Sturgeon:

Give Scots power to block UK quitting Europe", The Herald, October 29). After all, Texas has no veto on the affairs of the US federal government, nor Bavaria on those of the German government.

However, Ms Sturgeon has helpfully, although unintentionally, highlighted Scotland's choice of futures either in the UK or in the EU, but not both.

Immigration is undoubtedly uncontrollable whilst we remain in the EU. Outside the EU, we could control both the number and the quality of immigrants in the interests of the people already settled on our island.

Similarly, the EU is the original driver behind our economically-ruinous energy policy, which pushes up our electricity bills, destroys jobs and will soon lead to brown-outs and black-outs. And the ruinous effects of the euro deserve an entire book rather than a letter.

Scotland fits naturally into the UK - we share our language, our island and our history. We share none of these with our European neighbours. Also, splitting the UK's integrated economy would collapse our standard of living. In the cold light of day, I have no doubt which future the majority of Scots would prefer.

Otto Inglis,

6 Inveralmond Grove,

Edinburgh.

AS always in every debate about the (unwritten) constitution and future of the UK, the row about a referendum to leave the European Union is mired in confusion. And once again the elephant in the room is the gross imbalance of the four constituent nations within "the UK family", as David Cameron has suddenly begun to call it.

Of the UK population of 63.7 million, 53.5 million (84 per cent) are in England, 5.3m (8.3 per cent) in Scotland, 3.1m (4.9 per cent) in Wales, and 1.8m (2.8 per cent) in Northern Ireland. In simple terms, that means that in a UK-wide referendum, if 60 per cent of English votes were for leaving the EU and 40 per cent in favour of staying in, that would take all 63m of us out of Europe, even if every single vote in the other three nations was in favour of staying in. How is that democratic?

As I understand it, Ms Sturgeon's proposal was not that Scotland should have a veto over a UK vote (as the London-based media inevitably chose to present it), but simply that Scotland should be able to opt out of that decision if we had voted decisively the other way.

In a proper federal union, the smaller members would have some protection against being dominated and overruled by the much larger partner.

If we cannot have full independence for the foreseeable future, at least as a small partner in the unbalanced Union surely we should have our democratic rights protected by the Westminster Parliament, rather than have them casually brushed aside and ignored? Sadly in the UK no such protection was written into the original Treaty of Union, and Scotland is only now wakening up to this lack of foresight.

And if Brussels and Strasbourg are as much in favour of protecting the rights of minorities as they claim, surely they would want to find a way of keeping Scotland within the European Union, of which every Scottish citizen has already been a member for the last 40 years?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

HUGH Boyd (Letters, October 30) says EU rules don't allow a part of a state to be a member. However, there is a precedent for the opposite scenario. Greenland is still a part of Denmark and yet has been allowed to opt out of the EU.

Mary McCabe,

25 Circus Drive,

Glasgow.