MR Alex Gallacher invites me (Letters, January 2) to state the positive advantages of independence. Where has he been for the last 20 years? The case has been made in countless books, speeches, articles, and letters in the press. If he wants a succinct statement, I refer him to my book, Scotland in Europe: A Dialogue with a Sceptical Friend (Canongate, 1992).

Both Old Thatcherism and New Labour are designed to suit the ideas and interests of ''middle England''. The response of Scottish opinion shows very clearly how different these are from our own. Since, however, the population of England is more than 10 times larger than ours, any British Government, for good democratic reasons, must give priority to the interests of England both in internal policy and in the positions they take in the European Union.

It is no surprise that we constantly see examples of this, as over Rosyth, Bishopton, and the expenditure on the Millennium Dome and Covent Garden. If Scotland had been independent, we should still have a steel industry and our fishermen and hill farmers would have a much better deal.

The clearest demonstration of the value of independence is to compare the progress of the small independent countries of north-west Europe with our own. With fewer natural resources, they all enjoy greater prosperity and a better quality of life than Scotland. Take Finland, for example. Before it became independent in 1917, it was the poorest country in Europe. It is now one of the richest.

There are essentially two reasons why we need independence. The first is to enable us to build a society which suits our conditions, ideas, and aspirations. The second is to enable us to take our proper place in international affairs and to ensure that our ideas and interests are not forgotten as they are now in our present state of international invisibility.

Paul H Scott,

33 Drumsheugh Gardens,

Edinburgh.

January 4.