Independence would help us better share this great island

All independence means is that we want to get rid of 10 Downing Street and all the archaic idiocies which are associated with Westminster. Unless the rest of the UK (rUK) is stupid enough to impose border controls or even oppose a currency union then it will make no difference to the relationship which I have with my grandchildren who live in Northumbria. I have spent many years working in Ireland, Northern Ireland and England and still have many friends there. Independence will bring us into closer partnership; no more artificial barriers set up by Westminster.

Let us start thinking of Britain not as a failed state but as a desirable island on the edge of Europe. Scotland has one third of Britain's landmass, 50% of Britain's territorial waters and 70% of Britain's coastline. We need a government to enable us to control and protect our share of the island of Great Britain. We certainly can't leave that responsibility to the incompetents in Westminster.

We have a lot in common with the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland. Let us keep it that way through independence, and at the same time improve our contacts with the peoples of Europe who are also our neighbours.

George Leslie,

North Glassock,

Fenwick.

ANDREW McKie writes: "If anyone dares to point out that independence is not necessarily the only or even the best way to get rid of.... nuclear weapons, we are expected to acknowledge an airy wave of the hand as sufficient rebuttal."

I am not waving my hands airily or otherwise, but asking him one simple, direct question. Why does he not face the fact that every Unionist party is committed to the present deployment of Trident, and its replacement in 2025? They are perfectly open and unapologetic about it; why does he not believe them? "Better Together" sounds nice and friendly, but Unionists always miss out the unspoken last two words: "Better Together With Trident".

Independence is the "only and best way" to achieve the elimination of Trident, because there is no other route. Since this is an issue of unparalleled moral enormity, it must take precedence over all other considerations. In fact, this referen­dum is not just about the governance of Scotland, but about the funda­mental moral base of our society.

At present, we are all, whatever our views on independence, complicit in an ongoing war crime, the deployment and willingness to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in defiance of "ius gentium", basic international law. We have already signed the nuclear blank cheque, handed it over, and now wait in the hypocritical hope that it will not actually be cashed. But in our hearts, we have already done the deed. Our acceptance of this unspeakable depravity is a source of unendurable anguish to me and many others, and would alone be sufficient reason to support independence.

That is why John Paul McHugh ("Co-operation and partnership must prevail over division and grievance", Herald Agenda, April 17) is wrong to argue for a No vote. "Solidarity with others" is a meaningless slogan, if it does not include the people already selected as targets by our military. The working class of Glasgow, Dundee and so on does indeed have more in common with the working-class of Manchester, and Birmingham as we are so often told. But I would add the working class of Moscow and St Petersburg - or any other city on earth you care to name - to the list of places worthy of our sympathy and loyalty. That is what socialism, or simple common humanity, teaches us, never mind basic Christianity.

Trident is the ultimate symbol of British imperial power and status, and the epitome of hubris. That is why it has the support of British nationalists.

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.

PAULINE Bryan's astute response (Letters, April 17) to Bob Thomson's latest bout of wishful thinking ("Yes vote an act of solidarity with workers in Scotland and rest of UK", Herald Agenda, April 15) is very welcome.

It also highlights one of the more absurd claims made by supporters of Scottish independence, namely that separation will precipitate widescale constitutional reform in the remainder of the UK.

The fact is that for as long as it has been on the agenda, Scottish independence has been a minority interest - and current opinion polls indicate no change in that. It is also fact that there is little appetite for constitutional reform in the rUK and especially England, as indicated by the rejection of the alternative-vote referendum and the creation of regional assemblies in the North of England, proposed by John Prescott in 2004.

In other words, Scotland should have independence which most Scots do not want, so that English regions would have devolved assemblies which they do not want either. You have to laugh, don't you?

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill,

Glasgow.

I AGREE with Dr Graeme Finnie (Letters, April 17) that the Kirkwall referendum debate was illuminating on whether a separated Scotland could emulate Norway. Lesley Riddoch would like Norway's high quality child-care and education, an impeccable aspiration. But she resolutely ducked Alistair Carmichael's question about whether she would accept Norway's higher tax burden on working families; for example, 25% VAT. But voters want to know whether the SNP envisage higher taxes. If not, how will they pay for the higher benefits which the Yes voters would surely expect?

Robert Stephens,

65 Morningside Park,

Edinburgh.

THE substantial negative effect which an ordinary industrial dispute in one Scottish company had on the Scottish economy is a timely and stark reminder of what is on offer in the referendum.

Everyday events such as the Ineos dispute, or perhaps a major oil spill, are not within the preventative control of any government, but the financial effects can be very damaging not just for Ineos or an oil company but for all the support businesses which rely on what is often their biggest customer for a constant stream of work.

The overall economic squeeze that these damaging events would put on an independent Scotland would not be felt as such for a Scotland remaining safely within the Union comprising four countries sharing upsides and downsides in a complex world.

A safe or possibly precarious future ...

Jimmy Armstrong,

3a Abergeldie Road,

Ballater.