I DO not always agree with Harry Reid but I found much to agree with in his column about the European Union and the question of whether an independent Scotland really ought to be in any rush to join it ("SNP must rethink its policy on Europe", The Herald, October 30).

The current euro crisis of course raises questions as to the desirability of the EU, but deeper even than this we must ask if there is something wrong with the way in which the EU operates.

I have nothing in common with the xenophobic right wing of the Conservative Party or – even worse –UKIP and am an instinctual internationalist who seeks closer co-operation with our neighbours. The EU, however, has a problem in that it is not just about integration but also about pushing a certain set of economic policies; policies that have proven very harmful.

During the recent French election there were comments from certain quarters that the EU is a "banker's union". This language may be pejorative, but there is a certain truth underlying it – that the EU is built around neoliberal economic policies. In particular the Treaty of Maastricht prescribes certain policies that are clearly of a right-wing bent. The economic crisis and the failure to cope with it is evidence that these policies do not work, yet the EU is a straitjacket requiring that they be followed. Scotland should ask very carefully whether it really wants to be a part of this.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View,

Glasgow.

HARRY Reid suggests that Scotland gaining membership of the European Union could be "a complicated, divisive and protracted business" . That may or not be so, but this is not a matter of international law on which firm legal advice can be obtained at the moment, as most politicians seem to assume.

Whether or not an independent Scotland can remain a member of the EU as a successor state and inherit all the rights and opt-outs currently enjoyed by the United Kingdom, or must apply to join as a new member under strict conditions, will be decided by the European Commission and the member states. It will not be settled by legal opinions, or by rulings of Scottish, English or international courts.

If the EU membership rules already provide for a situation where an existing member divides into two separate nation states with both wishing to retain membership, that must be easily established. But if no such provisions exist, the continuing membership of an independent Scotland (and perhaps also the rest of the former UK) will essentially be decided by the EU Commission and the member states on the basis of mutual self-interest.

In such circumstances it is surely inconceivable that the European Union would wish to exclude Scotland, or keep it waiting many years for membership. Why on earth would it? Scotland has at least half of Europe's oil reserves and very substantial fishing grounds within our territorial waters, and is a world leader in the development of renewable energy from natural resources. There is a long history of good trade relations between Scotland and most European countries, to the great advantage of both, and we have mutually enjoyed close business, cultural and leisure links for centuries.Would the leaders of the EU wish to sacrifice all of that because of some technical legality?

Of course not – like most international bodies the EU is renowned for always finding a way to achieve what is in the best interests of most, perhaps bending or re-writing the rules if necessary. I have no doubt that an independent Scotland will become a full member of the EU in its own right, provided only that the Scottish people wish it to do so. That could be settled by a future referendum as Harry Reid suggests.

Iain A D Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

DAVID Williamson implies that Alex Salmond has been obfuscating over the Scotland-EU issue but it may be the First Minister had good reason (Letters, October 29).

As other readers have pointed out, if a Yes vote results in "new state" designation of Scotland by Brussels then the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland could end up with the same designation (through the courts, if necessary). In which case political chaos in Westminster would ensue, not only because the consequent English referendum on rejoining the EU might result in a No vote, but also because some EU member could say Non to England (France again?).

The one excuse Brussels has to avoid this situation is to consider a Yes vote in Scotland an act of unilateral secession and therefore not recognisable, leaving the present treaty name of our political state legally intact. I suggest Mr Salmond foresaw that EU debate had to be avoided until he obtained a UK agreement to accept a Yes vote, so nullifying the secession excuse. Now that the First Minister has obtained that agreement, I suspect that in the event of a Yes vote in Scotland both London and Brussels will strive strenuously to avoid the "new state" designation and the ensuing chaos.

An ironic aspect is that those who would vote No to separation because they want to stay in Europe could, if they were successful, find themselves part of a UK forced by continued UKIP success and Tory Party pressure to hold a referendum anyway. In which case the English majority may ensure that the UK (still including Scotland) leaves the EU.

Edward Roe,

72 Crown Road North,

Glasgow.