That Jeremy Peat is none the wiser following presentations to the David Hume Institute by four of the major political luminaries in the independence debate and intimate tete-a-tetes with them over coffee what chance do the rest of the voters have ("Many referendum questions remain despite the best efforts of politcians", The Herald, March 28)?

It is becoming increasingly clear both sides of the debate have no intention of bringing clarity to the situation but rather than presenting the electorate with agreed fact on which to base a decision are resorting to one side scaremongering and the other simply rubbishing the other's pronouncements.

If I make a purchase I try to find facts about the item rather than believing the glossy advertisements the manufacturer spoon-feeds us through the media; this is not possible in this crucial debate as the simple question of whether Scotland should be an Independent sovereign state has been rendered unnecessarily complicated by deliberate obfuscation introduced to cast doubt rather than to simplify the decision.

A pox on all politicians! Scotland is not a banana-republic, it is not an economic basket-case, it is not and will never be an SNP fiefdom it is a thriving part of the EU which no matter how one fudges the statistics is doing worse out of the current UK set-up than the south-east of England in general and London in particular. There is nothing in the make-up of the current UK national political parties that suggests that there will be any significant change in that emphasis during my lifetime.

That is problem we should be addressing and I see independence as a shortcut to that aim, all other factors such as currency, relationship with rUK and EU are matters which can and will be addressed before Independence is formalised as it is equally important to the rUK and the EU to find a speedy solution.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3, 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

Nick Clegg told his Aberdeen conference the Conservatives, Labour, and LibDems are coming closer to broad agreement on more devolution for Scotland as an alternative to independence. The three unionist parties' Plan A is the status quo: the result democratically chosen by a No vote. They now are offering a vague promise of possible powers (or perhaps only responsibilities) to be devolved in the event of such a No vote - their Plan MayB.

However, we have silence from the Better Together three on their Plan B if Scotland democratically votes for independence.

We know, for example, their parties' views on a currency union from a rUK point of view but not from an independent Scotland prospective. Similarly we know their UK policies on everything from austerity and benefits to nuclear weapons in the UK but nothing on how they would treat such issues after independence.

More fundamentally, there has been no indication of how the three parties would split from their old UK organisations or even if they intend to continue at all. From their many predictions about "Alex Salmond's Scotland" they imply that they would leave the political field to a perpetual SNP one party state.

Complicit in this, the media ask only the SNP about future policies and problems in an independent Scotland; a stance that suits the SNP as it portrays them as the natural party of government.

This failure to open up the debate to include alternative visions of a future Scotland diminishes the most momentous political discourse in Scottish history. There are a number of new and vibrant organisations that are rising to the occasion but the three unionist parties appear to be placing selfish party interests above a true national conversation.

The Better Together three relentlessly demand clarity, as if independence itself cannot be countenanced unless all future policies and decided and costed. Yet they refuse to engage in discussing what those policies might be or whether they, as individuals or as parties, intend play a part.

The public must have at least an idea of the potential Scottish political landscape and the alternative visions in the event of independence. Let's hear the Plan Bs from the Better Together Three.

Ronnie Partridge,

54 Irvine Road, Kilmaurs.

The reactions of people to the Scottish Referendum campaign have been interesting .

From the bumbling confusion of dear old Ken Clarke, who thinks we are voting on Devolution in May, to the Good Cop/Bad Cop approach of David Cameron and Georege Osborne who, in turn, either threaten to hug us or threaten to mug us.

Alastair Carmichael is making a list (checking it twice?), a long list, we are told, of the many benefits the Union brings to the Scots; Scottish Labour just wants us "to do as wur telt".

The celebrities are out in force, although surprisingly, we are told there is a shortage of Scottish comedians in the No camp. They may have to import some from England but with the proviso they don't need to play the second house at the Glasgow Empire on a Saturday.

Billy Connolly won't be voting. He'll be in New Zealand but thinks, ominously, that "the Scots will get what they deserve", while pantomime star John Barrowman, when asked if he was in the No camp, thought it a poor pun.

Sir Alex Ferguson is a definite No and has given £501 to the cause. He will also be pressuring the polling officials to add extra time for voting No , if necessary. And, of course, Ziggy is urging us to "stay" from his home in New York, while from Spain, 007 is urging all those who love Scotland to vote the same way he would - if he loved it enough to live here and had a vote.

Seances up and down the country have been attempting to discern the voting intentions of other prominent Scots but so far there has been no response from Robert Burns, David Hume or Sir Walter Scott but they have until September 18 to make their positions clear. One knock for Yes …

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

IN evidence to an inquiry, Scottish students described the SNP's discrimination against their English counterparts as "unjustifiable and morally wrong".

Alex Salmond plans to continue charging English students up to £36,000 in the event of independence, claiming "objective justification" makes such action viable under EU law. As with so much of the "legal opinion" upon which the Scottish Government relies, this is so self-serving and counter-intuitive it is unlikely to survive a ruling from the EU courts.

It really is essential that prior to the referendum voters can be given an assurance that all similar claims are legally defensible rather than just part of the First Minister's wish list.

Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

A vote for independence is not necessarily a vote for the SNP or Alex Salmond, it is a vote for self-determination post-Independence should it come to fruition.

It is a means to decide whether we wish to elect within Scotland a majority government which reflects the wishes of Scots rather than coping with the problem which has seen Scotland's political choice being swamped by our southern neighbours voting for a different political party, time after time.

Scotland has to realise that if we want a government which fully respects our wishes, be that SNP or other, then Westminster has to go.

I went off Alex Salmond when I discovered he likes Jack Vettriano's art. That will not stop me voting for independence in September. I will just not vote for Mr Salmond or any party he leads afterwards.

Alex Flett,

Lochfergus House, Kirkcudbright.

Stuart Allan (Letters, March 28), brings up the mantra of Scots being "too wee, too poor, too stupid" to run our own country and repeats the canard of attributing it to the pro-union campaign.

I have been debating with Nationalists all of my adult life in the pub and the debating chamber and for the last 25 years through letters pages, by email, blogs and Twitter.

I have heard this argument used numerous times and on every single occasion it has been raised, not by the No campaign or those supporting the existing arrangements, but by the Nationalists themselves, just as Mr Allan has done on this occasion.

No-one on the pro-UK side believes Scots are deficient in these ways. Only Nationalists even consider it worth talking about.

A Freudian psychiatrist would have a field day analysing why our Nationalist brethren are so keen to continually repeat this formula.

In my opinion it has nothing to do with the reality of the place of Scotland within the UK. Instead it points to the inherent feeling of inferiority of some Nationalists which, in turn, goes a long way to explaining why they are Nationalists in the first place.

Alex Gallagher,

12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

The response to my thoughts by both Colin Campbell and Stuart Allan (Letters, March 28) illustrates the debate on Scottish independence has now converted the country into a tinderbox of views and any spark has an incendiary effect. One wonders how we will all get on after September 18 regardless of the outcome ?

I expect Mr Allan is of the view he would wish the Treatie of Union had never been signed. Would he really be happy English was our second language? However,I feel he attempts to put words in my mouth with the generalised use of the word " barbarism" while I was referring to the well-documented infighting between armed kinships in troubled parts of pre-union Scotland.

I have no doubt there are home-grown advances in civilisation which Scotland has subsequently shared with England and which cannot be easily traced back to the fact we have exchanged so much through being in a close Union for so long. However, ever since James Watt improved Thomas Newcomen's steam engine, I feel we have very often promoted progress in partnership with the rest of the UK.

I agree with the historical facts Mr Campbell presents but not his conclusions. If Scotland had been independent in 1914 I believe it is very likely the German army would have ruthlessly invaded our country as a route into England. The effects of this could have been even worse for Scotland's people.

Similarly I ask would an independent Scotland have turned a blind eye to the Nazi extermination of Jews in continental Europe? I am certain Scottish sensibilities would not have permitted this and Scottish costly involvement in both world wars would, I feel, have therefore been unavoidable.

Even if independence did come about is it possible we could see the new Scottish state seek future avoidance of trouble and declare itself to be internationally neutral, in a similar way to Switzerland?

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.