I AM still scratching my head trying to follow the train of thought employed by Andrew McKie in his inherently contradictory article ("SNP cannot guarantee what independence would bring," The Herald, October 21).

He states that "the burden of proof is on the Yes campaign to provide, at the very least, evidence that Scotland could be independent". Is that just to change the minds of the "very few Scots", already identified by Mr McKie, who don't already "think that Scotland could function (or at any rate, function well) as an independent nation"?

It is also more than a little depressing to read, at this stage in proceedings, that "the case for a No vote necessarily consists of pointing at what is already present, and describing things which might possibly be lost".

I was hoping that the case for a Better Together vote would necessarily consist of pointing out positive ways in which we might all be, well, Better Together. Instead, Mr McKie seems to be implying that the best Scotland can hope for is not to lose its current exalted position within the UK; to me that sounds a little negative.

It also seems disingenuous to leave the blame for the lack of a devo-max option at the door of Alex Salmond. As we all know this pivotal condition was demanded by David Cameron while the terms of the referendum were being set. But perhaps the strangest argument put forward by Mr McKie is the following: "A cast-iron manifesto undertaking on, say, university tuition fees may later be abandoned, as anyone who voted Liberal Democrat can tell you. A claim to have abolished boom and bust, such as the one Gordon Brown made, may turn out only to have abolished the first bit."

Is Andrew McKie really urging us not to trust the SNP to honour their policy commitments, on the basis that Westminster politicians have a track record of breaking theirs?

Neil Comfort,

29 Bells Burn Avenue,

Linlithgow.

ANDREW McKie makes two interesting observations and then fails to make an obvious conclusion.

First, my recollection of SNP policy in the 1970s was that the party was dedicated to independence but not post-independence government. I will leave students of SNP policy history to correct or confirm that recollection but it accords with Andrew McKie's thoughts on the likely consequences for SNP after independence. And why not? Job done.

Secondly, he correctly points out there is no certainty of what will happen in Scotland following a No or a Yes vote, whichever prevails .

He then fails to come to the obvious conclusion as pointed out by Ruth Marr in her letter (October 22) that, as she says, "a party which gained only one seat at a Scottish general election would have no chance of imposing its policies on an independent Scotland". All you can be certain of is that in the event of a Yes victory it will be the voters in Scotland, for good or ill, who will decide the next steps. Not the voters in the rest of the UK, who rightly have other things to worry them.

An appealing aspect of this is that we would have much more difficulty blaming others for all that ails Scotland. This "blame the English" approach reached its height, possibly with some justification, during the Margaret Thatcher years when, if the weather was atrocious, the standard joke was "it's all Mrs Thatcher's fault".

It might be time to sort out our own problems. We are not short of them, although I fear we are stuck with the weather.

Bob McGowan,

Trinity Gask, Auchterarder.

IT may interest readers to know the financial logic regarding an independent Scotland having a share of the Bank of England is impeccable. The Bank of England is as much English as Scotland Yard is Scottish, given that the Bank of England was taken into public ownership - nationalised - in 1946. Overnight, the Bank of England became the Bank of the United Kingdom. Scotland and England are equal co-signatories to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's founding document, the Treaty of Union of 1707. It may be argued that in the event of Scotland re-establishing its independence, Scotland and England hold equal shares in the so-called Bank of England. Meantime,the 1946 act transferred the entire capital stock to HM Treasury and is held by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury.

Donald J Morrison,

20 Haig Street,

Portknockie,

Buckie.