NEIL Mackay set out key issues for the Yes movement to address ("Five key issues the Yes movement must address if it wants to win well", The Herald, April 30). He mentions the positivity of the 2014 referendum. Sources of that positivity lay in the false promises of the Scottish Government's White Paper. The effect on those who accepted figures, projections and myths without question would have been massive. Independence at any cost is hard for some to be positive about.

There is reference to what the tide left behind – "the abusive, the vulgar, the reactionary and the dumb". A major part of the Yes movement's strategy in 2014 was to attract many who had never voted before. The disenfranchised at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum were the mainstay. This demographic is targeted by every nationalist and populist movement with the rhetoric of injustice and a new dawn when those who are to blame are cast out. Who was targeted and how the message was pitched are part of what was sown. The voices Mr Mackay mentions are part of what is reaped whenever nationalist sentiments are agitated.

Scottish independence will never become a reality without the votes of the shouty and of the marchers derided in the article. I fear that a crucial point has been missed in respect of the marchers. Many turn out not to convert but to exhibit solidarity. I might not agree with them, but I see that as more than enough reason for people to gather and exercise their rights.

The piece refers to the need for the Yes movement to care about the country as a whole and not have Scotland divided against itself. This seems to be a forlorn wish. Scotland has been divided against itself since at least 2014. Any and all who push for a second Scottish independence referendum keep it divided.

However, at the end, I wasn't entirely sure whether Mr Mackay simply wants to exclude those who tarnish progress toward his goal or whether he's advocating removal of pursuit of independence from the table in the interests of harmony. I'd support the latter. However, I could never subscribe to the former.

Listening to things you don't agree with is one of the cornerstones of democracy. Some of them are distasteful and some are gross. However, unless they are criminal you should listen to them and try and work out for yourself why they form part of the picture.

Kenny Wilson

21 Union Street, Greenock.

I AGREE with some of the points in Neil Mackay's article.

It is certainly true that the next independence bid needs to win by a decent margin.I think it is widely agreed among Yessers that 60 per cent for Yes would be reasonable.

I also agree that the aim should be to win over No voters and those who are undecided. Many Yes Campaign organisers are holding public meetings and events with a wider appeal than the Yes movement and in my view are getting better at it. At a recent meeting of our local Yes Campaign almost half of the activists were not SNP members. The All Under One Banner marches have been hugely successful in putting out a good-humoured message of solidarity and confidence, particularly in remote areas like the Highlands. In places like Dumfries and Galloway,the presence of the marchers contradicts the negative message put out by a largely hostile media.

But I think that Mr Mackay wants to have his cake and eat it. You cannot argue the Yes Campaign is not doing very much in the way of concrete campaigning and then complain about the currency debate – "'scrapping the pound", as he puts it.

The future of Scotland's economy will determine the success of independence. There is a case to be made for a Scottish currency and banking system that will not repeat the errors of the past. We must not leave the monetary system in the hands of the "experts" – ie bankers and their pals. The Scottish people, who in the past set up many aspects of the banking system have the good sense to listen to complex arguments and make up their own minds.

Maggie Chetty,

36 Woodend Drive, Glasgow.

IT seems when it comes to the economics of currency in an independent Scotland there is still much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the actuality of the situation.

Alasdair Galloway (Letters, May 1) refers to the long-term depreciation of the pound sterling and he associates this with the UK’s balance of trade deficit. In contrast, he states that Scotland’s trade balance is in surplus which he suggests may allow an independent Scotland to avoid the "continuing decline" of sterling.

However, the relevant measure of the balance of payments for an independent country is the current account balance and not the trade balance, since it is the former that a sovereign nation has to finance. The UK currently has a balance of payments deficit of four per cent of GDP on its current account. The latest Scottish Government statistics show a Scottish massive current account deficit of 10 per cent of GDP, which represents around £16 billion.

Since an independent Scotland would inherit approximately £10bn of foreign exchange reserves this would be insufficient to finance such a deficit. This means that there would be a considerable excess demand for foreign exchange on currency markets, and as in any market, the price of foreign exchange would have to rise which, in turn, implies a sharp devaluation of any Scottish currency. In other words, a new Scottish currency would have to be sharply devalued compared to sterling given the size of its balance of payments deficit.

It is important to stress that this balance of payments / currency linkage implies that although an independent Scotland could of course try to use the pound post-independence (Mary Thomas, Letters, May 1), this would quickly unravel, whatever tests may be in place, since it is not a sustainable or credible policy for international capital markets.

The only result of adopting sterlingisation post-independence would be a massive speculative attack and a rapid movement to a separate and sharply depreciated Scottish currency with all of the implications this would have for mortgages, pensions and other financial assets and liabilities.

Ronald MacDonald,

Professor of Macroeconomics and International Finance,

Adam Smith Business School (Room 207 Gilbert Scott Building), University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

THERE should be another national referendum with two questions:

1. Do you wish to leave the EU ... Yes/No.

2. Do you wish an independent Scotland ... Yes/No.

It should be enacted by Parliament making it illegal to do any form of canvassing; party political broadcasts; flyers; adverts with a fine of £25,000 for breaking the law on any individual or party.

There will be one exception to the advert law – a series of national adverts stating “A national referendum is taking place on (...date...). Your country needs your vote”.

Ken Mackay,

27 Ormonde Avenue, Netherlee, Glasgow.

Read more: Neil Mackay: Five key issues the Yes movement must address if it wants to win well