I NOTE that Sir Tom Devine has switched from No to Yes on the issue of Scottish independence ("Historian and author Sir Tom Devine backs independence", The Herald, August 18).

When someone of Sir Tom's intellectual and academic standing expresses an opinion I take note. I agree with some of the key points in his reasoning. In particular, I agree that it is the "Scottish people who are wedded to a social democratic agenda and the kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the welfare state of the late 1940s and 1950s ... it is the Scots who have succeeded most in preserving the British idea of fairness and compassion in terms of state support and intervention. Ironically, it is England, since the 1980s, which has embarked on a separate journey." These are considerations which incline me to Yes.

I also agree, as surely almost everyone must, that economically Scotland could go it alone. However, it would be hard, which is not some­thing which would necessarily deter me from voting Yes. What does cause me to hesitate is the apparent lack of courage on the part of the nationalists and the Scottish Government to admit that a degree of austerity would be likely, at least in the medium term, post-independence.

Not even the most ardent nationalist would say that a sterling currency union is guaranteed. Any responsible Yes voter must contemplate the prospect of there not being a sterling currency union post-independence. In its absence a period of austerity measured in years would be unavoidable.

The reasons for that have been set out many times. Viewed from the internal perspective, without a lender of last resort our Scottish banks would require to hold far larger capital and liquid reserves than at present. Lending would entail increased security from the borrower and he would face increased interest rates. The effect on commerce and industry in the early days would be hugely negative.

Looking to the external perspective, debts taken out by the Scottish Government would incur higher interest rates and the provision of expensive security to the international lenders. Without action by the Scottish Government the inevitable consequence of these factors would be recession. To avoid that consequence there would need to be at the very least a cap on public spending, including welfare, and more likely, a reduction, resulting in such spending being a smaller percentage proportion of GDP.

Such austerity measures require strong government. My concern is that, because of the SNP's less-than-frank prospectus, many Yes voters will be sorely disappointed post-independence to find that the promised social welfare and other public spending improvements would be put on hold whilst taxation, direct and indirect, would most likely be increased. Far better that Yes voters vote Yes in the knowledge that for a spell times will be harder and that they will be prepared to pay that price for the independence for which Sir Tom so eloquently argues.

James Farrell,

8B Merchiston Park, Edinburgh.

ONCE again the spectre is raised that an independent Scotland could not afford to pay for all the public expenditure costs. To prove his point, Joe Darby (Letters, August 19) quotes selectively from the Gers Report from 2012-13, the latest "official" figures available, many of which are only "best estimates", since separate figures are not kept for Scotland.

It should be understood that, after independence, Scotland will retain all the tax revenues raised in Scotland, instead of all of these being handed over to the UK Exchequer, with only a proportion returned later as an annual block grant. According to Gers, in the tax year 2012-13 the total tax revenue raised in Scotland was £53.1 billion, including £10.9bn of income tax, £9.2bn VAT, £8.5bn national insurance contributions, £2.9bn corporation tax, and £5.9bn oil revenue tax. Only council tax (£2.0bn) and non-domestic rates (£1.9bn) remained in Scotland, with all the rest going straight to London.

So in retaining all that annual tax income a future Scottish government could comfortably meet the costs of health (£11.3bn), education (£7.6bn), welfare benefits (£5.5bn) and all the other costs of an independent nation of five million people. "Social protection" (£16.4bn) paid by the UK Government and charged against Scotland in the Gers Report includes state pensions, which will continue to be paid by the UK since it collected all our national insurance contrib­utions during our working lifetime and has already confirmed liability.

Some of the present costs not incurred in Scotland but "charged" to us as our pro-rata share of UK expenditure would no longer be incurred or be much reduced in an independent situation. In 2012-13 these included £7bn for defence and national security, £4.6bn for our share of interest on the UK national debt, and £2.6bn for unspecified "accounting adjustments". Scotland's budget for defence and security would be considerably less than its present share of UK costs, no longer including Trident, the bloated Ministry of Defence, and the cost of wars in other nations.

It is true that there would be a one-off expense in setting up a range of new government departments and public bodies, but the capital cost of this could easily be financed by government borrowing, which is exactly what most national governments (including the UK) do to cover one-off capital costs and also temporary budget deficits.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

THE letter from Professor Dave Mearns (August 19) about the Unionist parties crossing the Rubicon with their currency stance was interesting. He seems to be suggesting that, in the event of a Yes vote, everything after should be geared to suit Scotland on the basis that the result would be binding on all parties.

He conveniently omits to mention that the decision by the three main Unionist parties was on the back of Treasury advice that had concluded that a shared currency was not in the interest of rUK or Scotland. With the leaders of the Unionists announcing their decision well before the referendum it was better that way than the deceit of not saying but knowing beforehand their ultimate decision. This way the voters know the position and it is for them to decide if they wish to take this on board.

In any case, sharing the pound is not independence. The Yes side bangs on about getting control of the levers of power, only to want to give away the greatest lever: that of financial control to a foreign country.

Any "financial disaster" that he says will follow should not be blamed on the main Unionist parties for being honest but should perhaps be blamed on those who have not thought through the implications of independence. Did the SNP not want to take us into the euro because the pound was a millstone round Scotland's neck?

For him to now suggest that we should all refuse to vote is at this stage laughable.

Roy B Hudson,

29 Heather Avenue, Bearsden.

THE proponents of independence continue to ignore the fact that they have lost the economic argument and appeal to the rest of us to vote for a fairer and more just Scotland, whatever that may mean. How that is to be achieved is not clear. The prospect of Scottish independence is already threatening the value of the pound and, in the event of a Yes vote, I shall, on my next journey to England, visit an English bank with a view to moving my money to it.

David Miller,

80 Prestonfield, Milngavie.