I NOTE with interest Richard Lochhead's claims regarding the impact of independence on the level of financial support that Scottish farmers receive from the EU ("2014 'Yes' team target farmers", The Herald, July 29).

With Alex Salmond now conceding that EU membership for an independent Scotland would be a matter for negotiation, one can only assume that Mr Lochhead has received assurances from the 28 other member states that they would be happy for Scottish farmers to receive a boost in direct payments at their own farmers' expense. On top, of course, of all the other SNP demands for the exemptions and EU opt-outs that the UK currently enjoys.

The fact of the matter is that as part of the UK, farmers in Scotland currently receive, on average, the second-highest direct payments in the EU. In contrast, farmers in those countries which have acceded to the EU over the last decade have received an average of just 25% of the mean direct payment across Europe.

Mr Lochhead is perfectly entitled to make the case for independence and I look forward to a robust debate in months to come. But on this issue his account of the impact of independence on rural Scotland is simply wishful thinking and not reflected by the facts.

George Lyon, Liberal Democrat MEP,

Mirren Court,

119 Renfrew Road, Paisley.

SANDY Thomson is right to point out to Catriona Stewart that an independent Scotland may not have an SNP Government (Letters, July 29, and "Difference between a Yes and a No vote", The Herald, July 27). There will after all be a Scottish Parliamentary election in May 2016, whatever the 2014 referendum outcome.

But it is instructive to note that neither Catriona Stewart nor Sandy Thomson thinks that any current opposition MSPs are even worthy of consideration. I find that judgment harsh, but perhaps understandable. However, the list of six Westminster MPs proposed by Sandy Thomson contains three who singularly failed to govern the UK effectively (Alistair Darling, Douglas Alexander and Gordon Brown) and who were thrown out of office by the electorate for dragging us into two ruinous wars and wrecking the UK economy – not to mention presiding over a collapse of morality and probity in Westminster, the press and the Metropolitan Police – and two (Danny Alexander and Michael Moore) whom I consider to be hapless puppets of a Tory-led Coalition that is compounding all the errors of the previous regime while conducting a war on the poor, sick and vulnerable.

That leaves us with one, Margaret Curran, who despite her recent odd obsession with borders and "foreigners" is undoubtedly able and has experience of both Holyrood and Westminster. I also believe that an independent Scotland will bring to the fore a new generation of Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians, our three independents and the formidably able Patrick Harvie.

It is also worth noting that once the Labour Party and Liberal Democratic parties in Scotland get themselves sorted out after a Yes vote in 2104, the sitting MSPs are highly unlikely to want to make way for an influx of carpetbagging former Westminster MPs suddenly in search of a Scottish seat. It almost goes without saying that their chances of finding a safe English seat after a Scottish Yes vote will be slender, to say the least.

Peter Curran,

1B Main Street,

Kirkliston.

I WAS interested to read your report on Dennis Canavan's suggestion regarding the monarchy upon the advent of an independent Scotland, and his suggestion that an independent Scotland should hold a referendum as to who its head of state should be ("Yes leader's monarchy vote plan 'foolhardy'", The Herald, July 29).

I have long thought it puzzling why an independent Scotland should wish to retain elements of the United Kingdom.

Upon the dawn of a Yes vote in 2014, Scotland would be a sovereign state. Surely it should be completely autonomous, and quite correctly be afforded the opportunity to select its own head of state democratically through a referendum.

At times the calibre of arguments presented by some in the independence camp, in relation to complete independence are ostensibly advocating a form of devo max, rather than complete autonomy.

Why should the citizens of an independent country not have the right to democratically elect their own head of state?

John G McMenemy,

14 Braeside Avenue,

Milngavie.

THE report urging councils in the north of England to consider the positive benefits, economically, socially and culturally, that the region could reap as a result of Scotland achieving independence ("English councils gear up for Scots referendum", The Herald, July 27) is to be welcomed.

That the debate on Scotland's constitutional future has crossed the Border and is receiving such a favourable welcome is good news, and demonstrates a growing acceptance that the current Westminster Parliament with its political domination neither reflects nor addresses the needs and aspirations of people from all across the UK.

Scotland is at present leading the way on the constitutional debate but as the referendum draws closer, it must surely ignite interest and opinion in every part of the UK. The discussion of dynamic and forward-looking options for the future would be a far more constructive platform for debate than the negative scaremongering currently being promoted by the Fearties and their Project Fear.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.