THE attacks by your correspondents on Standard Life (Letters, February 28) are unwarranted.

Any good business organisation worthy of the name will have a robust risk management plan in place to deal with changes in the environment in which it operates. A management board which did not have such a plan in place would be derelict in its duty if it failed to ensure all steps were being taken to mitigate the risks inherent in any changed circumstances.

The First Minister needs to do more than to assert that "Standard Life will find Scotland a good place to do business"; he and the SNP need to demonstrate how the economic case for independence will stack up. This is something he and the party have singularly failed to do so far.

Alan Ramage,

12 St Fillan's Terrace,

Edinburgh.

THE statement from Standard Life was prudent and timely ("Fears more firms will follow Standard Life threat to quit", The Herald, February 28). It has highlighted a reality in the referendum debate which the SNP and other independence campaigners wilfully refuse to acknowledge, namely that there will be no currency union between the continuing UK and an independent Scotland in the event of a Yes vote.

It's hard to know what it will take to convince these people of the reality facing them. Both parties in Government and the official Opposition have issued unequivocal statements rejecting currency union, so that part of the independence discussion is over and we move on.

What we expect now is a coherent statement from the SNP as to which of the remaining currency options they prefer.

John McAleer,

24 Clelland Avenue, Bishopbriggs.

SIMON Taylor expresses his disgust at the prospect of Standard Life leaving the economic limbo that is Scotland and relocating in England. What does he expect? Of course companies will look after their own interests, what else would they do? I'm sure that he would fully anticipate that the company holding his pension would do just that. Apparently, though, Scotland will be better off with a slimmed-down financial sector. If he, and other sentimental Yes voters get their way, Scotland will have a slimmed down everything - including the workforce. There is no sentiment in business.

J Mathie,

16 Sheepburn Road, Glasgow.

UK commerce and industry must waken up soon to the threats to the UK economy being posed by the Chancellor's assertion that in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum the pound sterling belongs to the rest of the UK and not to Scotland.

As well as up to £500m of annual transaction costs that will be imposed on UK businesses, there is now the threat that further substantial relocation costs will be incurred by UK companies such as Standard Life, whose boards feel it is necessary to move out of Scotland. The board of Standard Life needs to recognise that although based in Scotland it has many more customers in the rest of the UK than in Scotland. It may have been incorporated as a Scottish company, but it is now a UK company which just happens to be located in Scotland.

The board of Standard Life would better serve the interests of their employees, policy-holders, customers and shareholders throughout the UK if it took its representations to the Chancellor in order to resist the unnecessary costs that he is going to burden them with, rather than trying to influence the democratic right of the people of Scotland to have their voices heard in the referendum.

John Jones,

16 Ballantine Drive, Ayr.

CURRENCIES Direct, which warns against Scotland keeping the pound if it becomes independent ("Currency experts issue warning over SNP plan to keep pound", The Herald, February 26), is a company that makes its money exchanging one currency for another; so maybe not quite 100% neutral observers?

It is right when it says there would be transitional difficulties for an independent Scotland whether it kept the pound or issued its own currency. However, there are big problems and risks with the pound if Scotland stays in the UK.

The financial crisis happened when we were in the Union and had the pound, due to deregulation by Conservative and Labour governments. In the 1980s high interest rates set to cool down the financial sector in London wrecked the manufacturing sector. The Conservative Party is still in the pockets of the banks and the hedge funds.

The Herald reported last month that the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute and the Scottish TUC say the pound sterling has held back most sectors of the economy because it's managed for the benefit of the financial sector ("English think tank: UK Government promoted London recovery at the expense of Scottish economy", The Herald, February 16).

South Korean economist Ha Joon Chang points out that the UK stock market is now higher than before the financial crisis, without any matching recovery in the rest of the economy. Without better regulation of the financial sector, investment in other sectors of the economy, and increasing wages for the majority, this bubble is likely to burst like the last.

Being part of the UK as a larger country is not protection against this.

Unionists often claim Ireland suffered because it was a small country. In fact it suffered because it deregulated its financial sector and did not have its own currency, having joined the euro.

Norway, with a population similar to Ireland's, suffered no crisis and no recession because it regulated its banks and has its own currency.

The UK, with more than 10 times the population, and the US, with 40 times Norway's population, both suffered financial crises and recessions because they deregulated.

Duncan McFarlane,

Beanshields, Braidwood, Carluke.

I AM astounded at the stance taken by Advocate General Lord Wallace. ("Government law chief pours scorn on SNP's currency plan," The Herald, February 27). In his speech to the London 80 Club he states: "There is no principle of international law which obliges a country to enter into a currency union with a foreign country."

As the UK Government's law officer for Scotland, pronouncing on constitutional matters, we should expect the Advocate General to be aware of such basic texts as the UK Government's Ireland Act,1949. Item 2 (1) of this UK Act states unequivocally : "It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions,the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony…".

Can Lord Wallace explain why Scotland would be a foreign country when the Republic of Ireland,under British constitutional law, is not ?

Tom Johnston,

5 Burn View, Cumbernauld.