THE predictions made by Professor Ronald MacDonald of "devastating recession" caused by a currency union ("Top economist:

Currency union would collapse", The Herald, August 15) come, I suggest, as part of the expected summer of anti-independence scare stories. What is surprising, against such currency risks, is that, since 1945, so many countries across the world have chosen independence - 130 of them. Why have we not heard of these devastating currency consequences elsewhere? Strangely, Prof MacDonald's risk assessment for Scotland's economic future includes no reference to the massive national debt built up by the UK, or the further years of austerity economics promised by the Westminster parties, with 60 per cent of the public expenditure cuts yet to be imposed after the 2015 General Election.

At his briefing, Prof MacDonald talked of the differences between Scotland's economy and that of the rest of the UK. He said that excluding oil revenues, Scotland had an average trade deficit of 11 per cent over the last 15 years, which became a trade surplus of 2.7 per cent if our geographic share of North Sea oil was included.

He used this data to talk down an independent Scotland's economic prospects. But,why would we exclude consideration of the 40 years of oil left in the North Sea, the huge oil discoveries off Shetland and the major oil resources under our Atlantic sea territories? Why would we not also take into account the massive potential in our renewables and other industries?

And why does he present the UK as offering our best future, when Westminster's economic mis­­management over the last 30 years has contributed to the devastation wreaked on Scottish industry, which has given us this "average trade deficit of 11 per cent over the last 15 years"?

Should we not have been experiencing a trade surplus if UK economic policy had been acting in Scotland's best interests?

Prof MacDonald makes a series of threats concerning Scottish independence, but presents no evidence of any Westminster Plan A to prevent Scotland's continuing economic decline, and no prospect of a better economic future if we remain within the UK.

Andrew Reid,

Armadale,

Shore Road,

Cove,

Argyll.

WE were surprised by the prominence you gave to the again-expressed views on currency union of Better Together champion, Professor Ronald MacDonald. Last April, Professor Anton Muscatelli, the respected macroeconomist and principal of Prof MacDonald's own university, wrote that opposition to currency union in the event of a Yes vote would be "tantamount to economic vandalism". Two weeks ago, former RBS chief executive and chairman Sir George Mathewson set out the benefits of a currency union and this week Sir Donald MacKay, the leading oil economist and long-time adviser to UK governments agreed. And the Scottish Govern­ment's Fiscal Commission, with two Nobel laureates, identified a currency union as the best option for both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Prof MacKay also described the Scottish Government's assessment of oil and gas reserves as "perfectly sensible" and that of the Office of Budget Responsibility as "precisely wrong". This lends weight to the Investors' Chronicle view that Westminster is seeking to downplay the value of oil to the Scottish economy before the referendum.

As others have also concluded that, on independence, the Scottish economy would be in a healthier position than the rest of the UK, we infer that Prof MacDonald's concern is that the Scottish economy would be too strong for a currency union with the rest of the UK.

If that is what he believes, we challenge him to be explicit. While we can see such a scenario as possible in the long term, particularly if rUK fails to adopt responsible fiscal, monetary and industrial policies, we do not believe it to be a concern in the medium term.

Academics for Yes:

Professor Andrew Cumbers,University of Glasgow; Professor Mike Danson, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh; Professor Bryan MacGregor, University of Aberdeen; Professor Jo Goldblatt, Queen Margaret University, Musselburgh; Professor Mike Danson, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh;

Dr Stephen Watson, University of Glasgow; Geoffrey Wittam, Glasgow Caledonian University.

THE First Minister's pronouncement that the No campaign is purposefully causing instability in the money markets suggests that he has completely lost touch with reality ("Salmond accuses No camp of creating financial instability", The Herald, August 15).

The main UK parties made their opinions on currency union perfectly clear as far back as February, but Mr Salmond and his colleagues have consistently ignored the facts, preferring to accuse their opponents of "bluff and bluster" at every turn. As anyone with a shred of common sense knows, it is the SNP's decision to take us to the referendum without a proper currency plan that is endangering the Scottish economy. Of all the reasons to stay within the Union, the issue of currency has stood out as number one since the SNP launched their campaign in May 2012. They have had more than two years to formulate a plan, yet choose to blame everyone but themselves for the shambles that has been created.

Mr Salmond's advisors and spin doctors must now be regretting their decision to promote his bloody-mindedness on the issue as a strength, especially when the strongest nationalist supporters never wanted currency union in the first place. As we head towards September 18, the SNP's insistence that "it's our pound, and we're keeping it" will prove to be their undoing. At that point, Mr Salmond may be forced to admit, albeit privately, that everyone else possibly had a point after all.

Derek Miller,

Westbank, West Balgrochan Road, Torrance.

TOM Gordon seems to regard Alex Salmond's performance at First Ministers's Questions with a degree of grudging admiration ("Masterclass in art of 'porky palisade cobbler'", The Herald, August 15) as Mr Salmond goes through his usual performance of blaming everyone else but himself for the mounting uncertainty surrounding his independence referendum. I cannot agree. In the past it might have been acceptable to present a picture of the First Minister confidently swatting away the pesky flies of democratic accountability but, with the wheels increasingly coming off the referendum wagon, this is no longer the case.

The picture that springs more to my mind is of the final act of the classic children's film, The Wizard of Oz. For years now we've been told that Mr Salmond was the wizard of Scottish politics. Everyone was afraid to take him on because no-one could stand up to his scorn or match his rhetoric: he could win every argument by sheer volume of voice and he could blow away all opposition. One result has been that nobody, particularly parts of the Scottish media, has questioned his position, or his policies, such as they are. The Wizard of Eck has megaphoned his way to domination over a fawning media and a bamboozled political class.

Recently, and particularly since his currency aspirations were destroyed by Alistair Darling, the SNP leader has been in visible decline. In his BBC interview with Jackie Bird (the "Dorothy" of this scenario?), Mr Salmond came across as a shrunken figure, his previous ebullience diminished and his confidence drained. Like the Wizard of Oz minus his ladder and his megaphone, he still mouths the words and attempts to brazen it out, but he no longer strikes the fear in his opponents that he once did. No-one is listening and you get the impression that he doesn't even believe it himself any more. Mr Salmond knows, and we know, that the jig is up.

Alex Gallagher,

12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.