I was much entertained by the letter from economists (The Herald, June 25).

They (correctly) point out that the Centre for Macreonomics merely presents its own opinions and is (sinister indeed!) supported by the Bank of England. They then present their own opinions. However, because they support independence these opinions are presented as "facts". A clear case of "pot" and "kettle", I feel.

Their core view seems to be that small economies perform better than large (tell that to the Germans or Chinese). Given the huge issues in defining what is small and what is large, surely far more important is what might be defined as the "corporate governance" of the countries concerned? There are appallingly governed small countries and well governed large. Neither the size of sample nor indeed the definition of criteria would seem to me to permit any faintly credible conclusion to be drawn on this matter. And indeed less committed economists of my ken admit this.

The logic of the argument would be that in smallness lies a panacea for economic ills. So why not split Scotland into two, three or even (using Iceland as a population baseline) 15? By the time we have 15 mini states on Scottish turf we will surely be an economic powerhouse to leave the world breathless?

There also seems to me a rather curious paradox at the end of their piece. They describe the UKs "systematic macroeconomic failures". Surely then they should be vigorously opposing an independence and First Minister who believes that this same "failure" is both an optimal currency area and to which he proposes to relinquish effective control of all monetary and fiscal policy? Or is it the usual Nationalist case of having your cake and eating it? Britain is a success when you want something from it and a failure when you don't, and if you are challenged then simple: Reverse your argument.

Hugh Andrew,

West Newington House,

10 Newington Road,

Edinburgh.

Patrick Dunleavy states that an independent Scotland could face up to a decade of transition to independence and suggests around £200m in one-off costs will be required to create its own versions of a few, but big and important, existing UK department capabilities ("Setting up new state 'would cost £200m,", The Herald, June 23).

I calculate that £200m equates to employing about 35 people for one year based on the average wage of £25000 plus the associated costs of renting premises, providing furniture, computer equipment, employer's pension contributions etc. That doesn't seem nearly enough people or the people (at the wage level) with the necessary skills to do anything worthwhile. Against this, the UK Treasury has put a figure of £2.7 billion as their estimate of the start-up costs. Even this does not seem to be enough to do the job properly. In 2010 it cost the Scottish NHS £44m just to set up a 24-hour help line.

Establishing new departments and the systems necessary for a new country will be complex. Inevitably, after these new departments are established, they will be over-manned. The track record of successive governments in reducing over-manned government departments is not good. This means that apart from losing the efficiencies of scale as part of the UK, we will pay dearly to be burdened forever with an inefficient parallel system.

It easy to understand why Alex Salmond is nervous about producing costs to set up his new Scotland.

Gregor M Egan

15 Lowndes Street,

Barrhead.