THE management of immigration is a classic issue where devolution needs to be based on practicality, and it is disappointing that in his article Iain Macwhirter ("It is time immigration powers were devolved to Scotland", The Herald, June 6) does not deal with exactly how a devolved immigration policy would be administered.

The problem is that Scotland shares an open land border with England. If people are admitted to Scotland, there is nothing to stop them immediately moving south – where there are more established Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (Bame) communities with social, economic and religious infrastructures and networks, as well as more and better paid jobs and (usually) better weather.

There are three possible solutions to this: a controlled border, tagging of individuals and differential visas and work permits. The first two are unacceptable in political and human rights terms respectively and the the third is bureaucratic and expensive. In the latter case, it would also beg the question whether offenders would be deported from England to their place of origin or to Scotland, with the added complication that they might become Nationalist causes celebres if they happened to be SNP supporters (like the Brain family from Australia).

It remains the case that Scotland needs more people and there are ways in which we can attract them to study and work here. The biggest potential source of such people is the rest of the UK, and the Scottish Government might be more successful in attracting them if they stopped wanting to divorce us from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. A good start would be to extend to students from the rest of the UK the free tuition which is made available to those from all other EU countries.

The other point to be made is that with free movement from the rest of the EU, if people had wanted to come to Scotland in vast numbers, they would have done so already.

In the end, moreover, the best way to attract people will be to create more and better jobs, which will remain a very difficult task while uncertainty about Brexit is doubled and squared by the Scottish Government's insistence on adding the uncertainty of the prospect of another independence referendum. As with so many other things, it would be much better if it concentrated on what its current powers can achieve, rather than the fantasy of independence.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

THE First Minister has stated that the SNP conference in Aberdeen is the "start of a new chapter in Scotland’s road to independence" ("Sturgeon says conference is ‘start of a new chapter in Scotland’s road to independence’", The Herald June 7). There is no great surprise in her coming out with that opinion. After all, she has her followers to rally. There are many who would suggest that it should not be a new chapter being opened up, but rather a new book to replace the one which reached its denouement on September 18, 2014.

She also endorsed the report of the SNP’s Growth Commission (354 pages). Again, there is no surprise there as it is likely that she was kept advised of its content as it was evolving and before it was finalised. This report, allegedly "packed full of new ideas for Scotland’s future", is not apparently in the plans for a main debate at the conference. I, like Labour’s Jackie Baillie, wonder why that should be. What is more important? It is interesting that the space required to set out those "new ideas" is a lot less than the 600-plus pages required to outline in 2013 the SNP’s plans for an independent Scotland in the White Paper Scotland’s Future.

Finally, on this "road", there is the inconvenience of a visit to 10 Downing Street to submit a referendum request to the incumbent Prime Minister. The one currently in post has declared emphatically that such a request would not be accepted. As things stand, the Prime Minister is likely to have the support of the majority of the Scottish people in adopting such a position.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

I WOULD appreciate the opportunity to respond to Alasdair Galloway’s robust and critical riposte (Letters, June 6) to my earlier letter (June 5). Anyone who has lived long enough (me) or is an oil economist (Alex Salmond) would be well aware of the risk associated with the volatility of the price of oil as experienced over the years. As Mr Galloway recognises, this volatility is generated elsewhere, and it is something over which Scotland (Holyrood) has no control. To ignore that risk in talking up the economic case for independence was at best foolish. as has been shown by the fact that an independent Scotland would have received little or no oil revenue.

He and I will have to disagree over his view that simply because it had been part of the UK an independent Scotland would be accepted automatically into membership by the EU as having inherently satisfied the criteria for joining the EU. To me that is simply wishful thinking and contrary to the views expressed by EU officials (and of course Spain) prior to the vote in 2014 .

As to the funds Scotland receives at present under the Barnett formula, irrespective of any perceived historical grievance or justification, we are where we are with them and like it or not they are called commonly and variously consequentials, block grants, support or subsidy payments. No matter what they are called , they would cease on independence .

As regards what I termed the “discredited" White Paper “ , I see in today’s Herald that I am not alone with the Scottish Tories calling it “ misleading and nonsensical" and “a work of fiction". I guess this may be another point of disagreement with Mr Galloway.

The question in my letter remains unanswered. That was, does Ruth Mar , and now Mr Galloway, really believe Scotland today would be in a better place economically if it had voted for independence in 2014 ? Perhaps they agree with Nicola Sturgeon that independence transcends all other considerations?

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon’s View, Dunlop.

WHAT an awful place our Scottish Parliament has become, illustrated weekly by First Minister's Questions.

Every Thursday we witness the same performance. The same questions, the same answers, followed by the same hackneyed displays of indignation.

How long this pretence can carry on I do not know. But I do know this; it cannot continue in its present state.

What we have is a nationalist party in power, trying to run a devolved administation with very limited powers, powers conferred by Westminster. Devolution is a Unionist constuct invented to constrain nationalism.

That does not make sense. The SNP is playing a dangerous game when it participates in the Unionist creation that is Holyrood. The administration of Scotland by devolution for whatever party is in power at Westminster is not the job of a nationalist party.

Richard MacKinnon,

131 Shuna Street, Ruchill, Glasgow.