THE Welsh First Secretary's intervention in the Scottish debate does not arise from confidence in the Union but from Welsh fear of British metropolitan dominance ("Welsh First Minister calls for veto on currency union", The Herald, November 21).

He does have a Labour Party vested interested but the real concern in Wales arises from their historical experience of Britain.

They were defeated and colonised in a way that Scotland was not and this left a nation with less confidence. Scotland fought long and hard in the 1880s to get a Secretary of State and Cabinet representation. Wales did not get a Secretary of State until 1964 and they would not have got an Assembly without the long battle in Scotland because West­minster didn't really care and what they were given in a rather contempt­uous gesture was not even a legislature. They would not be getting the additional powers without the view in London that they were best to avoid another conflict front given the situation in Scotland. This is not in any way to under-rate the many years of work by Plaid Cymru to get a Welsh government, a demand that for a long period was strongly opposed by the Welsh Labour Party.

But the big fear which I have heard expressed from people with different political backgrounds is that London has really no interest in Wales and only makes concessions when it has trouble in Scotland. Carwyn Jones knows perfectly well that the suggestion that Wales would be allowed to interfere in what was in the interest of the City of London markets is, to put it mildly, unbelievable. What will determine whether there is Westminster agreement to a currency union is what the money markets will decide is desirable and Scotland's export income and other trading interests will be the deciding factors.

Since it is Welsh fear of the British state which is motivating this intervention, what Wales should be doing in the event of a Yes vote is to give their support to Plaid Cymru and present another real problem for Westminster.

Isobel Lindsay,

9 Knocklea Place,

Biggar.

THE invocation by Carwyn Jones of a Welsh right of veto on a currency union with an independent Scotland reveals an innovative, if wholly aberrant, understanding of the United Kingdom. His claim suggests that the Union is a creature of home nations that continue to be vested with residual "sovereign" rights to take decisions collectively.

The Welsh First Minister is not alone; language of this kind permeates the referendum debate. The increasing currency of the notion of the "pooling of resources" is of particular note in this regard, since it implies that ultimate autonomy of action lies with an England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that merely attribute tasks (or contribute funds) to the Union. While hardly descriptive of the unitary nature of the United Kingdom at present, such rhetoric may, as Carwyn Jones set out, represent the nascent articulation of a constitutional settlement that might emerge following the vote.

His assertive remarks might, however, prove to be prescient whether the result is a Yes or a No. No matter what happens, a veto of this kind indicates that the United Kingdom will be transformed into no more than a set of institutions held in common by separate nations that reserve the right to have the ultimate say. In a sense, the First Minister's divergent vision looks beyond where the totem of sovereign statehood actually lies in deriving authority for a putative veto on the organisation of a common British institution from the people or, as he puts it, "taxpayers" of Wales. In brandishing a Welsh veto, resting on Welsh popular sovereignty, Carwyn Jones contemplates a power for the home nations that disregards whether or not it amounts to separate sovereign statehood.

Alastair MacIver,

South Gillsland Road,

Edinburgh.

IT seems to be the accepted practice to refer to Scotland as "leaving the UK" if we choose to become independent again. This implies that the United Kingdom will continue to exist comprising only England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI), retaining all the memberships of international organisations and all the treaty benefits and obligations, while Scotland will be treated as an entirely new nation state starting from scratch.

Is this assumption valid under constitutional and international law? By voting for independence Scotland will in effect be withdrawing from and breaking the 1707 Treaty of Union, as it is fully entitled to do even after 300 years. All the provisions of the treaty will thus become null and void, meaning that the present United Kingdom would no longer exist as a nation state, and both parties to the original treaty would revert to becoming indepen­dent states.

The precise wording of the 1707 Treaty of Union is critical. In recognising the actual union of the crowns which took place more than 100 years earlier, Article I of the Treaty provides that "the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall…. be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain", and all the subsequent articles refer to "Great Britain" and do not mention "United Kingdom".

It seems clear that the word "united" is merely describing the action of coming together, and that the intention was to name the new state Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. (Incidentally there is no provision in the treaty that either of the two signatories should be regarded as the senior partner in the union, or should inherit the name if the treaty was ended.)

So if the Scottish people vote next year to become an independent country again, Scotland will not be "leaving the United Kingdom". That constitutional structure would no longer have any legal status and would cease to exist, and England (along with Wales and Northern Ireland), would have no right under international law to continue to be the "United Kingdom".

This is much more than just some arcane academic point. The UK is currently the registered member of such organisations as the United Nations, the European Union, Nato, and many others. Is it right that EWNI can simply assume these memberships and retain the associated international status, while Scotland is treated as an outcast and has to negotiate re-admission as a new applicant? Should this assumption not at least be challenged in the international court?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

WHEN James VI was crowned, it was as "King of Scots"' and not, as your report on the theft at the Church of the Holy Rude in Stirling states, "King of Scotland" ("Anger as historic church is targeted by copper thieves", The Herald, November 21). There is an important constitutional principle here. As King of Scots James was chief of the people and not, as the other title would have asserted, owner of the land upon which the people would have been merely squatting by his leave - as has been the legal position in England since 1066, when Duke William forced the Saxon Parliament at sword-point to proclaim him "King of England".

Brian D Finch,

64 Whitelaw Street (3/5),

Maryhill,

Glasgow.