What really matters to EU is access to Scotland's resources

There are two profound flaws in this argument. First, it is a tiresome and oft-repeated claim that Scotland is a small nation. In Europe, small nations extend in population size from tiny Luxembourg through less tiny Iceland to, at about two million, small Latvia and Slovenia. There are a number of large countries by European standards, like Germany, Poland, Spain and France. In the middle range are countries like Denmark, Sweden, Croatia and, of course, Scotland.

In a wider perspective, the population of Scotland is about that of Singapore, not an insignificant world player, and much larger than that of the smaller Gulf states, again not insignificant players. So, Scotland is not small by international standards, though neither is it large.

Secondly, it really does not matter so much for winning international negotiations what the population of a nation is, especially given some of my smaller examples, if it has large resources, such as those a sovereign Scotland would have. In fact, what actually beggars belief is that the EU would not want a smooth admission for Scotland given, to name but two large resources, its oil and its owning of one-third of the fishing areas to which EU countries, including Spain, want access.

The Spanish Prime Minister's opinion about Scotland's EU membership (surely actually aimed at home consumption, where he has his own concerns) does not have ex cathedra status. It is a politician's remark, no doubt that of a pragmatic one. If one of Harold Macmillan's "events, dear boy" is a Yes vote, his fishing industry will ensure he supports in short order a welcome of Scotland as a full EU member. A sovereign Scotland would not be a small nation either internationally in population terms or in negotiations in terms of what really matters in international negotiations - resources to which other countries want access.

Professor Ian Brown,

2 Darnley Road, Glasgow.

The Scottish Government's White Paper on the independence referendum was actually more of an extended sales pitch than any kind of attempt to provide dispassionate information (so much for serving the needs of the Scottish people).

It is a long document, so I will start with the first premise - that there is a gap between the majority of Scots and the political party that governs the UK. Their argument is simple; for 50% of the years since 1945, the UK Government has been different from the party voted for by the majority of Scots. They do not go on to say therefore that for 50% of the time the UK Government has not been the one voted for by the majority of the residents of Surrey. That is democracy.

The horrible truth is the majority of people in Scotland have voted for the Labour Party consistently and mindlessly, which has had consequences for the whole of the UK and Scotland. Have we forgotten the chaos under Callaghan, the economic collapse under Blair-Brown, having boasted of ending the economic cycle?

The SNP was primarily a single-issue party that had to fairly rapidly clothe itself in a political outlook, following the mass disaffection with Labour following the Blair-Brown years. Of course it chose New Labour's clothes and is now toying with the communism of the Jimmy Reid Foundation. Most significantly, what the Scottish Government has effectively done is to demonise all the politics of the right as a foreign, an English phenomenon, and that only the politics of the right has caused any suffering or error or economic or political disasters.

This is dangerous thinking. It is anti-democratic and promises Scotland only this, a left-wing governance for all time, which will have the effect of a one-party state, in which opposition is dismissed as wrong. They have already done this with the "bedroom tax", which is simply an attempt, albeit inept, to start somewhere to rein in the booming benefits budget. Scotland was in receipt of £20 billion at the last count.

This is the politics of totalitarianism, in which opposition voices are first derided, then demonised, then suppressed. Have we learned nothing from the collapse of communism? The democratic deficit does not lie with the UK, but in the Scottish Government.

Dr M Bremner,

Garrowhill, Glasgow.

The SNP document Scotland's Future is an irresponsible attempt to bribe Scotland's voters with short-term promises. Greatly increased child-care hours, abolition of the "bedroom tax" and increases in the minimum wage are matters which belong in an election manifesto covering a few years. They could be enacted by a future government and withdrawn a year or two later after a change of government. A document entitled Scotland's Future should outline Scotland's status as an independent nation for generations ahead.

A crucial difference between a Yes result from the referendum and a No result is that a Yes is irreversible, whatever the possibly unhappy eventual outcome of the many negotiations with outside bodies which must follow. Most people believe devo max would command a majority of votes if the Scottish electorate were offered it. A No vote keeps open the possibility of further devolution.

The Unionist parties must find a way to offer a positive vision of Scotland's future in a revised Union. I find several of my friends who were decided No voters have now begun to waver. The main reason is their disgust at the socially divisive policies of the Coalition Government. If Scotland was offered the chance to arrange its internal affairs so as to increase social justice, most of them would seize it. We may heartily dislike the policies of the right-wing Westminster government, but it will not last for ever. In the meantime, better conditions for a devolved Scotland could still be negotiated. Vote No if you believe in devo max.

Kenneth Brown,

61 Killermont Road, Bearsden,

Glasgow.

I am not sure whether Alex Gallagher (Letters Special, November 28) is being disingenuous and trying to deliberately confuse others with his "logic" or whether he himself has been genuinely confused by the misinformation put out by the No campaign.

The "logic" of not progressing now with the improvement in child-care provision is that to do so would require taking funding from some other Scottish budgets; like No campaigners, Mr Gallagher has not suggested from which budgets. The intent indicated in the White Paper is that the increased taxation, from people freed up to go into employment by this policy, would pay for the improved provision. As part of the UK, however, the Scottish Government would have to pay for the child care, but the tax would go to the UK coffers, ie Scotland pays for it fully but receives only a fraction of the financial benefit while other parts of the Scottish economy would suffer.

Mr Gallagher is correct that in such cases, while we remain part of the UK, "Scotland is on hold". Once the Scottish Government does have full financial control and tax intake from such initiatives is fed fully back into the Scottish Government coffers, ie after independence is achieved, we will no longer be "on hold".

Jim Stamper,

40 Burnside Road, Rutherglen.

It is Doug Maughan ("Defence plans don't add up", Letters Special, November 30) who needs a reality check. Does he seriously believe an independent Scotland wishing to retain Nato membership would be regarded as a "foreign power"?

As for defence assets, just as an independent Scotland would, properly, have to accept its fair share of UK debt, it would also be due its fair share of assets. This is unquestionable.

The assumption England might rip out radar equipment from any jet which was ceded to an independent Scotland is childish beyond belief (if you're not going to be in my gang, I'm not playing with you any more). It would be just as much in England's interests as Scotland's that Scotland be properly defended.

Mr Maughan asks who is going to fly these planes. Presumably, the same sort of people who fly planes in other countries which have gained independence; they're called pilots. Some may even be Scots who choose to switch from the current UK air force to one in Scotland.

Roger Graham,

23 Cullen Crescent, Inverkip.

J Gordon Stewart (Letters Special, November 30) highlights the slow growth of Scotland's population since the 1960s when compared with that of England. Even more significant has been the trend since the Treaty of Union was signed in 1707. The most reliable statistics we have for the 18th century come from Webster's census of 1755, which put the Scottish population at 1.25 million. England in the 1750s had four times as many - around 5.8 million.

Our most recent census in 2011 gave Scotland's population as 5.3 million, compared to the English figure of 53 million. England now has 10 times as many people as Scotland.

Unionist politicians are fond of claiming "the Union has served Scotland well for the past 300 years". It certainly seems to have done England no harm.

Alexander F Thomson, Cromarty.