University silence should not be taken as support for a Yes vote

In the run-up to September's referendum there has been much debate about whether an indepen­dent Scotland could maintain the research income from UK sources such as the Research Councils and health-related charities upon which so much of its success depends.

Scottish institutions have done extremely well when competing for UK Research Council grants; for example, in 2012-13 they won £257m (13.1%) of the funding available - a remarkable achievement for a country with just 8.4% of the UK population.

The most recent UK Clinical Research Collaboration Health Research Analysis (2012) showed that in 2009-10 Scotland won £180m (11.5%) of the funds made available by the 12 largest public and charitable funders of medical research in the UK. Sources funding Scottish institutions included the Medical Research Council (£66m), the Wellcome Trust (£46m) and Cancer Research UK (£28m). By comparison, Scotland's Chief Scientist Office (CSO) provided £17.6m.

If Scotland were to withdraw from the UK and create its own Scottish Research Council our research community would be denied its present ability to win proportion­ately more grant funding than the country contributes to a common research pool.

However, rather than going it alone, the Scottish Government aspires to join with the rUK in creating a common research funding area. Even if this could be negotiated, it is highly unlikely that rUK would tolerate a situation in which an independent "competitor" country won more money than it contributed to drive its research, develop capital projects and infrastructure, and train its research workforce. We regard creation of a post-independence common research area as an undertaking fraught with difficulty and one that is unlikely to come to fruition.

In the debate about independence it is ironic that the Scottish Government is able to speak freely while the heads of our leading research universities (and the umbrella organisation Universities Scotland) and our premier learned society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, have to date felt obliged to remain neutral because they receive Scottish Government funding. Their silence should not be interpreted as evidence of tacit support for independence on the part of the life sciences research community.

We write as individuals with no party-political agenda but with extensive experience of heading world-leading research groups, units and institutes in Scotland, and participating at the highest level in the work of grant-giving government agencies, UK Research Councils and health-related charities. Growing out of our profound commitment to Scotland are grave concerns that the country does not sleepwalk into a situation that jeopardises its present success in the highly competitive arena of biomedical research. Life sciences research provides thousands of high technology jobs; it is now and can undoubtedly remain a cornerstone of the Scottish economy. We contend that Scotland's research interests will be much better served by remaining within the common research area called the United Kingdom.

Professor Dario Alessi, Professor Jean Beggs, Professor Colin Bird, Professor Sir Adrian Bird, Professor John Coggins, Professor Richard Cogdel, Professor Sir Philip Cohen, Professor James Garden, Professor Neva Haites, Professor Nicholas Hastie, Professor Wilson Sibbett, Professor Karen Vousden, Professor Roland Wolf, and Sir David Carter,

19A Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh.

CATHERINE MacLeod has a gift for drawing illogical conclusions from basic facts ("Prosperity put at risk by ending the Union", The Herald, May 22). In her defence of the CBI's position on independence she fairly states that business leaders dislike uncertainty. That is no surprise, but it is not an argument for never changing anything.

Business leaders have in the past opposed the notion of changing governments because of the uncertainty they would face and have been root-and-branch opposed to the most innocuous social reforms, such as the minimum wage. It might seem that their argument is not just with independence but with democracy itself.

As to her criticism of the SNP for not engaging in either the Constitutional Convention and the Calman Commission, it should be noted that the party could only have participated in either if they had abandoned their basic belief that Scotland should be an independent nation. It's a bit like excluding the Roman Catholic Church from the World Council of Churches until such time as it gives up its belief in Transubstantiation.

It should also be noted that the absence of an enhanced devolution option on the referendum ballot paper was at the insistence of the Wesminster Government, not the SNP. This was because of the notion that Alex Salmond was angling for more devolution rather than independence. Now history is being rewritten to say that it is the SNP who are being obstructive.

The CBI should take account of the fact that it is in its interests to serve the community rather than insisting the community arranges its affairs solely in the interests of business.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead.

ONCE again Catherine MacLeod is way off the mark with her views of prosperity and its affects on our society.

There is substantial evidence to support the view that the top 10% of earners in the UK are prospering at a much faster rate than most of us and particularly the poorest. In business they are prospering by cutting or freezing the wages of their employees, making staff redundant and so on.

While I am no socialist, there is something terribly wrong with our country while this is happening.

If Ms MacLeod can offer some constructive solutions to 25% of our children living in poverty or 100,000-plus people on zero-hours contracts I'm sure we'd be fascinated to hear them.

India is a relatively prosperous and dynamic economy. It does not mean everyone in India is prospering. The UK is heading in the same direction.

The Westminster arrangement is not, by any measure, benefiting our poor. That is a disgrace.

Though a comfortable member of the "middle" class I will be voting Yes for others, not myself.

Prosperity does not mean equality, and it is time that the Unionists admitted as much.

Simon Taylor,

3 Kirkdene Place, Newton Mearns.

CATHERINE MacLeod is disingenuous when she says the referendum debate isn't about self-government but about "breaking the social and economic ties of a 307 year old Union". She might fear that the results of independence will be the severing of those ties (which is debatable - just look at UK-Ireland relations even when they were at a low point) however she is setting up a straw man.

The terms of the actual debate don't consist of nationalists proffering plans of how to halt the social and economic ties of these islands and retreat into splendid isolation. Quite the opposite. This brings us back to the question of governance, which is the core of the debate.

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens,

Southall.

I NOTE with interest the timely warning from Professor Andrew Dorman for Scots travelling abroad after independence: don't ("Scots 'at risk in danger zones' after Yes vote", The Herald, May 22)

The risk of being abducted, abandoned, hijacked or held hostage increases exponentially for an independent Scot in foreign lands; and the resources of the new Scotland would be inadequate to effect a rescue, so best stay at home.

Except that the risks, even at home, are greater in an independent Scotland, states Prof Dorman, as the size of the Scottish Defence Force would be inadequate to protect us and our airspace from attack. So, better stay with the Union .

But no, Prof Dorman dismisses that option too. He advises that it's time to "stop placating" Scotland to the detriment of England, so Scotland's defence bases should be reduced and defence resources "consolidated south of the Border", including orders for equipment and servicing of the new aircraft carriers.

It is clear from Prof Dorman's analysis that Scotland would be unwise to vote for independence but that it should also expect an end to favourable treatment from the generous UK state in the event of a No vote .

So, what to do ? Scotland is doomed whether we vote Yes or No .

Well, there is always emigration, so best do what our ancestors did and quit these shores and seek a better life elsewhere. I only hope that Ukip will allow us foreigners into rUK .

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

I WAS interested in the ease with which the Five Million Questions project neatly divides Scottish voters by party allegiance ("Seven out of ten Scots 'back Ukip policy on immigration'", The Herald, May 21).

Did the survey take into account, for example, those who may vote SNP at Scottish Parliament elections and Labour or Liberal Democrat at Westminster elections?

David Rollo,

25 Beaufort Drive, Kirkintilloch.