DURING and since the Independence referendum, contributions by your Unionist correspondents decrying Independence for Scotland have to my mind become more and more strident. This has served to polarise the supporters of independence and better define what independence actually means for Scotland. However, it has also had the effect of making the Unionists case less and less clear. What do the terms “Unionist” and “United Kingdom” actually mean now?

For me the perfect example of a union is a marriage where both partners work in harmony and have equal status in that union. That certainly is not the case for our current union with England. In fact, looking objectively at the so-called United Kingdom, Scotland does not function as a partner in any meaningful way (ignore Holyrood; it has no real power over big decisions). If England wants nuclear weapons on the Clyde, England gets nuclear weapons on the Clyde; if England wants to go off on a foreign bombing adventure, England gets to go off on a foreign bombing adventure. With England having representation of 533 seats at Westminster and Scotland having 59, this does not represent a union by any definition. The United Kingdom, is in reality England, with the terms Britain, England and the United Kingdom having become completely synonymous with each other and this is exactly how Britain is viewed from afar. Scotland is, in reality, a region of England on a par with, say, the likes of Yorkshire and the Humber, which has a population of 5.3 million and a representation at Westminster of 52 seats.

This is not what I want for Scotland, I want Scotland to be a real country on an equal footing with England having equal say on things like Trident and going to war; and preferably I would like Scotland to be an independent nation within the EU with equal representation with the other 27 countries in the EU.

I challenge your Unionist contributors to define what they actually mean by being Unionists. I believe that they are not Unionists at all but are, in fact, proponents of English regionalism. They appear to believe that we should be a minor region of Britain/England, and, although they say they are Unionists, somewhat ironically, don’t believe that Scotland should have an equal say in the Union. Is being on a par with the likes of Yorkshire and the Humber really the pinnacle of their ambitions for Scotland?

Andrew J Beck,

5.02 Condominium,

7 Uthant, Jalan U-Thant,

55000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

SO John Mason, MSP, does not feel British or understand what British values are (“I do not feel that British says MSP in loyalty oath row”, The Herald, December 23). Maybe he should consider tolerance as one such value?

Respecting that an opposing view is not necessarily bigoted or blinkered.

Respecting that acknowledging the outcomes of elections is part of a mature and adult response to our democracy even if you have misgivings.

Respecting that generations have lived, worked and married across the United Kingdom building networks of friends and relations, enjoying the diversity of different backgrounds and local traditions.

If John Mason so strongly holds his view on being British he might want to have a little look inside his passport which notes that he is a British citizen. If he does not believe this is true: send it back - don't be a hypocrite.

Gerry Marshall,

Thistle Cottage, Kinnesswood, Kinross-shire.

ALASDAIR Galloway (Letters, December 23) shows two things in his account of the cash flows between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

The first is a surprisingly unsophisticated view of the economy, in that he seems to believe that revenues originating in Scotland over the past 35 years were shipped off south and straight into the pockets of the greedy English, never to return. In fact those revenues were retained within the same UK economy as the Scotland that generated them, and used for all sorts of things like social security, pensions, Regional Selective Assistance, tax cuts, the NHS.

Scotland benefited at the time from that public expenditure proportionately by population and need to the same degree as any other part of the UK, and of course continues to do so even as those revenues have declined. In these ways, the historic revenues to which Mr Galloway refers can be seen as investments which spread the risk and provide protection for an uncertain future.

The second is a certain meanness of spirit. The approach of regarding Scotland and the rest of the UK as hermetically sealed and indeed antagonistic units reflects an attitude of "what's mine's is mine and I am going to keep it." The other way of looking at the same data is that the UK is a mechanism through which its different parts can share between and support each other for mutual benefit.

Of the above, one is the view of nationalists, and the other of social democrats and socialists. One is the philosophy of holding and keeping, and the other that of sharing, and supporting each other. I know which is more seasonal.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Peter Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

I DON’T normally respond to correspondents who disagree with one of my published letters, since I believe it is up to the readers to decide with whom they agree or disagree on any particular subject. But I must make an exception in respect of the responses from Martin Ketterer and Philip Adams (Letters, December 23). In taking me to task neither even mentions the two specific points I actually raised in my letter, namely the serious disrespect shown by Theresa May towards a formal document submitted by the Scottish Government, and the clearly stated intention that the 1707 Act of Union was intended to be a binding arrangement between two equal partners.

Mr Ketterer bizarrely claims that Mrs May’s curt dismissal of the 70-page document is actually the fault of Nicola Sturgeon, “because she is totally obsessed with independence”. But the report was prepared by a panel of acknowledged experts trying to protect Scotland’s beneficial place in the European Union as much as possible - it had nothing to do with independence from the United Kingdom. But since Mr Ketterer also apparently admires what Mrs Thatcher did to the Scottish mining, steel, shipbuilding and heavy manufacturing industries in the 1980s, I will treat his views on political leaders with some reservation.

Mr Adams also ignores the two points I actually made, and Instead accuses me of “muddying the waters” about the EU referendum by merely pointing out that the Scottish electorate voted by an almost two-thirds majority to remain. He cheerfully states that the votes cast in Scotland are simply “irrelevant”. I think that aptly proves my original point that the UK political establishment no longer recognises the stated intention of the Union Treaty.

Ian AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

WELCOMING Donalda MacKinnon, incoming director of BBC Scotland, and noting her liking for home-grown drama, Peter A Russell calls for a drama which would reflect the “impoverishment of Scotland, and the resulting social and political decay” if Scotland had become independent in the 2014 vote (Letters, December 22). Perhaps, rather than looking to others to fulfil his fictional fantasy, he could write a script himself, as he never fails to wax lyrical on the perils of independence. On the other hand, he could maybe look out the 7:84 company's The Cheviot, The Stag, and the Black Black Oil (in its original and more recent representations) and see how Scotland's wealth has been systematically exploited by Unionist politicians over the years.

For Mr Russell, it's a sign of “servile toadying in the Scottish cultural scene” that his own preferred fiction has not been staged or screened. Well, if it's toadying he's after, he'll find it aplenty on BBC news bulletins - I'm sure I wasn't the only person left anxious and deeply troubled this week to learn that the Queen had a heavy cold. Donalda MacKinnon has her work cut out.

Dr Angus Macmillan,

76 Georgetown Road, Dumfries.