I MUCH appreciated the contribution by our Primus, the Most Rev David Chillingworth, on the debate about independence for Scotland ("Churches have an opportunity to discuss place of faith in society", The Herald, June 5).

However I consider that concerns about the specialness of Scottish society are a secondary – albeit important – issue.

The primary issue for the social doctrine of the church is to consider what best makes for human flourishing and the common good. Is an independent Scotland likely to facilitate or hinder such flourishing?

An independent Scotland would control its own defence policy. This would be most unlikely to include a continuing commitment to the nuclear deterrent. All the major churches in Scotland have called for the ending of Trident and opposed the renewal programme.

It could also lead to Scotland no longer being a member of Nato, an alliance which is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction (the morality of which is highly questionable) and which has been used as a support for illegal or unjust post-imperial forays outwith Europe. One may admire the courage and commitment of British troops whilst at the same time questioning British military involvement in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

The economy is a crucial area. How could an independent Scotland help or hinder human flourishing? It is at least arguable that a Scottish government with full economic powers could manage the Scottish economy so that people took priority over the demands of high finance. The resources that Scotland has, from the quality of its education to whisky, tourism and energy, could be used to sustain an economy geared to the production of socially useful goods and services. The current emphasis on developing a renewable energy industry is an example of what could happen.

An independent Scotland could run a more humane benefits system driven by response to human need rather than by efforts to cut public expenditure. Indeed in some areas an independent Scotland would be likely to increase public expenditure and value public service.

Immigration policy could also become more humane, with a greater recognition of the value of overseas students, of people working temporarily in Scotland, of the importance of strengthening family life by enabling families to live together and by a more generous and less xenophobic attitude to refugees and asylum seekers than that displayed by the Westminster Government.

On grounds of subsidiarity, there is a strong argument for an independent Scotland but with the recognition that an independent Scotland should play its full part in both European and international affairs.

I would argue that the primary considerations for independence are whether or not it fosters or hinders human flourishing. However, in the process people in Scotland need to maintain an inclusive view so that there is no lurch towards sectarianism. At present Scottish nationalism is broadly inclusive and Scotland is a place of multiple identities. I believe these multiple identities could cope with an independent Scotland, or with a federal United Kingdom or with some form of the present dispensation but with greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Solidarity is the balancing component to subsidiarity in the church's social teaching. The churches and faith communities in Scotland will need to work hard to ensure that nationalism does not become exclusivist and Unionism does not retreat into denigrating the capacity of Scotland to govern itself.

Rev David Mumford,

St Andrew's Rectory,

9 Castle Street,

Brechin.

THE petition to Edinburgh City Council to remove religious observance (RO) from schools has raised the question of whether abolishing it in one education authority is a good way to spend £10m during austerity. As a mother and the chairwoman of Secular Scotland, I say of course not. The problem with the current provisions under the Education Act of 1980 is that it requires ludicrous levels of resources to change it.

We at Secular Scotland, on the other hand, have a petition lodged with the Scottish Parliament which would change RO to require parents to opt in. This leaves it intact for those who want it but ensures parents will be given real freedom to choose, along with the information to make the choice, something which does not happen now, despite being required by law.

Only 20% of parents are informed by the school that they can opt out, and doing so is often actively discouraged, with no provision made for those who do. Sometimes parents' wishes are ignored and children made to feel as if they are being punished.

By supporting our petition, parents can keep RO if they want it. The changes would be made once only, at parliamentary level, with no wasted resources and the provision would be the same everywhere in Scotland, parents better informed, and kids happier.

The petition is at scottish.parliament.uk /gettinginvolved /petitions/ religiousobservance.

Caroline Lynch,

Secular Scotland,

58a Broughton Street,

Edinburgh.