Status quo has not been good for those suffering due to cuts

But every day in east Glasgow I see the losers; those who, because of the huge welfare cuts supported by the main parties in the Commons, have become even poorer ("Poorest are being hit hardest by UK-wide welfare reforms", The Herald, June 23).

As a Labour member and socialist for more than 50 years, I want a country with greater equality and less poverty for women, men and children. I believe there is more chance of this in an independent Scotland governed by politicians elected in Scotland; one which would not have the undemocratic House of Lords in which Helen Liddell sits.

Bob Holman,

76 Balgonie Road, Glasgow.

On behalf of Better Together, Baroness Liddell claims that, as a Coatbridge girl, she benefited from the 1948 Education Act, which she describes as an act of the UK Government, paid for by taxpayers from every part of Britain.

But section 14(5) of the aforesaid act states: "This Act shall not extend to Scotland". Does the former Secretary of State for Scotland not realise that Scotland includes Coatbridge? For many years, Scottish education has benefited from different legislation and different traditions from the rest of the UK and long may that continue.

Dennis Canavan,

Sauchieburn,

Bannockburn.

All credit to Helen Liddell for being the first girl in her council scheme to go to university, and no doubt she was also the first girl in her council scheme to accept a seat in the unelected House of Lords but did Coatdyke really need a Baroness?

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

What a patronising contribution from Baroness Liddell. The suggestion that advances in social welfare, health and education that Scotland has witnessed are solely the result of the gift of the rest of the UK is an insult to Scots in general and her own political party in particular, the implication being that, were we not part of the UK, this would never have happened. It is particularly galling when her UK party is complicit in the proposed reversals in these gains.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3, 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

Richard Mowbray expresses his complete opposition to independence in trenchant terms (Letters, June 24). There is much at stake and I find his passionate engagement refreshing. However I fear his engagement hasn't extended to reading the varied visions and detailed offerings from the numerous pro-independence groups beyond the Scottish Government. This includes a more centre-right vision from Wealthy Nation, the group started by historian Michael Fry.

And surely there's something in these varying visions and offerings and even the draft constitution Mr Mowbray condemns. Whatever one might think of them, they're not a visceral soufflé of hatred and nothingness. Everything would potentially be up for grabs and indeed a new centre-right party that is demonstrably engaged with Scotland would most likely find better prospects shorn of formal ties to Westminster. But whatever the result in September, a return to politics as usual would be the worst possible outcome.

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens,

Southall, Middlesex.

Iain AD Mann (Letters, June 23) criticises Alex Salmond for agreeing to a TV debate on independence with Alastair Darling, characterising that agreement as "an insult to Scotland" and going on to describe Mr Darling as being unworthy to debate with Mr Salmond. I applaud Mr Salmond's agreement as I believe the debate will provide an essential platform and focus for both sides to clarify their respective positions on the important present uncertainties as regards costs, currency, terms of EU membership and so on. We need as much information as possible from authoritative sources on both sides of the argument. What does need to be resisted is any attempt to turn the referendum into a Scotland versus England contest, which it is not.

As we are told repeatedly that the referendum is a matter of huge importance for the Scottish electorate alone to decide, I hope there will also be TV debates among the leaders of all the political parties represented at Holyrood, and also between the leaders of the Yes and No campaigns.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

We respond to the results of the third monthly survey from the Centre for Macroeconomics ("Poll of experts says independent Scotland would not be richer", The Herald, June 7). We have a number of issues to raise with their survey, its independence and the understanding by the small number of participants of the Scottish economy, its opportunities and its potential.

What is presented is no more than opinions, and we have no way of knowing the basis for these opinions as they are not supported by evidence and argument. In contrast, the arguments and the evidence have been set out by the Scottish Government's Fiscal Commission, which included two economics Nobel Laureates. The strength of the Scottish economy has been confirmed by Standard & Poor's.

We note that the Centre for Macroeconomics was launched last year and is supported by the Bank of England. It has an advisory board chaired by Ben Broadbent, deputy governor of the Bank of England and has Robert Chote, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), as a member. While we fully respect the right of these economists to have opinions and to communicate those opinions, they should no more be seen as independent professional economists than we are. We have opinions, informed by evidence and argument, and we communicate these opinions. But we are hardly independent.

Macroeconomic forecasting involves heroic assumptions and is populated by failure. In responding to the survey, we wonder how many looked outwith the UK to the experiences of our nearest small neighbours during this period of crises? Did they recognise how much more quickly these small economically strong European countries were to recover, both those with and without oil? None of these countries suffered the recession of the UK or the prolonged and continuing austerity. Even Ireland and Iceland have been outperforming the UK. So, as many international agencies and commentators and the markets appear to disagree with those surveyed, we might ask who might have a better understanding of Scotland's prospects?

The IMF report published on the same day as this survey again said that the principal challenge for the UK is its woeful productivity (along with house-price inflation driven by the Central London market). Where should Scotland look for monetary, fiscal and complementary policy options for a more prosperous, stable and fair future - the successful small economies with their superior records of productivity growth and innovation, or the UK with its systemic macroeconomic failures? Would those surveyed be able to answer that independently?

Professor Bryan MacGregor, Aberdeen University; Professor Mike Danson, Heriot Watt University; Professor Iain Docherty, Glasgow University; Professor Andrew Cumbers, Glasgow University (all Members of Academics for Yes).