IT is noticeable that none of the people calling for a second referendum, particularly our First Minister, is prepared to tell us what we will actually be voting for other than “independence” and that somehow this will protect the Scottish people from adverse but unspecified effects of the United Kingdom leaving the EU. For example, will we be voting for an independent Scotland with its own currency or are we going to continue to use the pound sterling?

I am inclined to think that the Nationalists have no idea but aren’t worried because the reality of the situation is that they have no intention of trying to hold another referendum because, first of all, they know that they will probably lose again. I also believe that a lot of people in the SNP would not want to win a second referendum and be landed with the problems of managing an independent Scottish economy with a large deficit in revenue. It is also noticeable that none of the second referendum protagonists mentions this either; they would be much happier continuing to stir up grievances instead of having to sort them out.

A very large part of the SNP’s support among the electorate comes from disillusioned Labour voters who are disappointed that years of voting socialist has failed to deliver the Utopia they were promised. These people have voted for the SNP as a protest against the Labour Party and they are not necessarily in favour of independence.

This is the reason that the results of the last General Election in Scotland are not a reliable indication of the level of support for independence and do not represent a mandate for a second referendum as many of your correspondents and columnists have suggested.

The same people also say that the situation since 2014 has changed and for this reason the question should be put to the electorate again. I wonder if these people would agree with the proposition that if a majority (and it will only ever be a very narrow majority given the polarisation of opinion on this subject) eventually vote for separation and the situation subsequently changes, when, for example, it is found that independence is not a panacea for all Scotland’s problems, the bottom falls out of the economy and the new Scottish currency becomes worthless (all of which are distinct possibilities), a third referendum should be held to decide on rejoining the Union and that this should be a commitment before a second referendum is permitted by the UK Government.

Peter Wylie, 26 New Street, Paisley.

ERIC Ferguson (Letters, February 15) claims that “Labour has lost its electorate and that is not the fault of the SNP”. In an earlier life I had the pleasure of teaching British political history. Disraeli is said to have said with reference to the Second Reform Act: “We caught the Whigs bathing and stole their clothes.”

In effect the SNP has adopted every “progressive” policy associated with Labour and other parties without making much effort to put them into practice I suspect that it will not be long before the independence-obsessed Nationalists get “fund oot” by an increasingly frustrated electorate.

J Melvyn Haggarty, 20 Bellahouston Drive, Glasgow.

RICHARD Richardson and Alan Fitzpatrick (Letters, February 15) seem a tad exercised by the Barnett Formula as though it were an undeserved gift to Scotland, and that the Scottish Government should spend its budget in direct proportion to that spent down south. But Barnett was dreamed up by Unionist politicians, and if it had not existed they would have had some difficulty in diverting, in its entirety, all the oil and gas revenues from the Scottish sector of the North Sea to London. And what a difference to Scotland, access to our own resource income would have had, alongside the management of the exploitation of the oil field (which is where Norway greatly boosted its economy).

But in the Fiscal Framework for Scotland negotiations, it was clear that Westminster was intent on eliminating any advantage the Barnett Formula gave to Scotland. That was prevented by the Scottish Government (with little help from Scottish Unionists) insisting Westminster lived up to its “no detriment” commitment. That will change in 2021 when the Fiscal Framework is again discussed, and I would not be surprised if Barnett disappeared for good. When that happens then it will be impossible for Unionists to claim Scotland benefits economically from the Union, given our higher costs due to geography and population density. In any case, Barnett only covers 60 per cent of UK state spending, and the other 40 per cent spend is heavily weighted against Scotland.

GR Weir, 17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

ALAN Fitzpatrick asks a previous correspondent if he appreciates that “if Scotland left the UK there would be no payment at all under Barnett?” A question as reasonable as: does Mr Fitzpatrick appreciate that, if Scotland left the UK, there would be no billion-pound payments for our share of the cost of weapons of mass destruction at Faslane?

David Hay, 12 Victoria Park, Minard.