Status of rest of the UK would bring about a legal dilemma

The 1707 Treaty of Union which created "the United Kingdom of Great Britain" was a formal agreement under international law between two sovereign states, Scotland and England (Wales and Ireland were not named but merely assumed to be included as two former nations already conquered and owned by England). In Scotland, according to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, the people are sovereign, not the monarch, and that legal status was not altered by the treaty and remains intact to this day.

If the Scottish people vote Yes next September they will not be "withdrawing Scotland from the United Kingdom", they will be withdrawing their agreement to the Treaty of Union, and all the provisions of that treaty will therefore become null and void. In other words, the United Kingdom as it is now constituted will cease to exist, and the two signatories will simply revert to their original names and status as independent sovereign states.

There is no valid reason why England, Wales and (now) Northern Ireland should continue to claim to be the United Kingdom, and thus retain sole possession of the memberships of various inter­national organisations like the United Nations, the European Union and Nato, while Scotland is excluded from all of these and has to re-apply, despite the Scottish people also having been members. Yet that is the position which the Better Together campaign and the Coalition Government have been allowed to assume almost without challenge.

Under international law it is more logical and correct for both the new entities to be treated as successor states to membership of these global bodies, and to inherit jointly all the terms, conditions and obligations of the many other international treaties entered into by the former United Kingdom. The name of the second successor state could simply be "England", since that is what most people around the world call the UK anyway, so there would be little confusion.

I still hope for some serious debate on this important matter, with contributions from experts in constitutional and international law with much more knowledge and expertise than I can claim. If my theory is correct, it would solve the long-running dispute about an independent Scotland's membership of the EU and Nato and other outstanding issues.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

LISTENING to recent news coverage, I get the impression that some parts of the media are promoting the notion that, thanks to Chancellor George Osborne, the economy is improving and tax receipts are on the increase.

This has been peddled to a gullible public to make them feel that the recession is over and that they could spend, spend, spend, in the Christmas period (and so swell the Chancellor's VAT receipts). And of course, it is now the time for the propaganda to be whipped up as the Scottish independence vote and the UK elections draw nearer.

But let us look at the facts.

In recent years, for every £5 the Chancellor has spent, he had to borrow £1 from the international debt markets. Now that he has higher tax receipts than expected, all that means is that, instead of having to borrow £120bn each year to balance his budget, he may now only have to borrow £105bn every year.

What is rarely mentioned is that, year by year, the national debt continues to soar at an alarming rate. The recent estimate just released by the Treasury is a staggering £1.3 trillion. Nor do we hear how this debt is serviced, as since the UK's loss of its AAA borrowing rating, the interest to be paid by the UK has increased.

Where did the Chancellor get the extra cash to help balance his budget? From the same source that caused the credit crunch in the first place - the bankers. The average total receipts, which include salaries, pensions and bonuses for London's top bankers, have soared by 35% (on which tax has had to be paid). The European Banking Union has said that the UK has now 2714 bankers with earnings (including bonuses) exceeding one million euros (£833,000). Contrast that with Germany's 212, France's 117, Italy's 109, and Spain's 100.

It is not surprising therefore that many UK bankers will fall foul of the new EU rules which will cap bonuses to one year's salary (or to a maximum of two if shareholders approve).

Chancellor George Osborne has filed a complaint against the EU about this and last September the Treasury went a step further by lodging legal action on the grounds that the EU had gone beyond its remit. There seems to be no way that we can win against the bankers who are already drawing up plans to sidestep the rules by handing out increased monthly salary payments to staff affected.

For once, I agree with Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls that the so-called recovery is all smoke and mirrors. His attempts to convey this to the Commons were met by continued shouting of abuse by 300 Conservative MPs, with the result that not a word of what he said could be heard. It was not surprising that he got completely rattled. Does the word "independence" not now have a stronger ring?

John S Jappy,

Moy Bridge Cottage, Urray,

Muir of Ord.

ALISON Rowat has hit the nail firmly on the head ("Invisible woman of politics needs more doorstep time"). It's simply not good enough for the Better Together campaign to keep banging on about all the horrors that will follow if Scotland votes Yes. It's time for them to start empha­sising the positive aspects of being in the United Kingdom, surely not too difficult a task.

So, Johann Lamont, Alistair Darling et al, stop being such prophets of doom, and tell the people of Scotland just how great the Union is, and how much we will benefit from staying in it. Not so much of the status quo, and more of "forward together".

Sandy Robertson,

Kylepark, Uddingston.

YOU remind us that the SNP promised free school meals for primary pupils when it first came to power in 2007 ("Pressure on SNP to deliver on free school meals promise", The Herald, December 23). This promise has not been kept. However, the elderly have retained bus passes.

Theory: primary pupils do not have votes, but the elderly do.

I do not aspire to be a citizen of a country governed by such cynicism. I recommend No.

William Durward,

20 South Erskine Park,

Bearsden.