KEVIN McKenna plunged to a new low in his most recent article with his view that somehow during the current coronavirus Britain has been exposed as a "vicious little gangster state" ("Galloway, Gove and McConnell? No wonder the Union is finished", The Herald, August 22). Really? Using his twisted logic he presumably would also include countries like Spain, Italy and France with similar death rates per 100,000, albeit their NHS equivalents (unlike the UK) were unable to cope at the peak of the epidemic. No mention of course of the generous furlough payment scheme, business grants and bounce-back loans (backed by the UK Government) in an unprecedented move to suspend capitalism to deal with the crisis. So what is really behind his faux rage

Look no further than his concern about George Galloway and his new Alliance for Unity party entering into the debate about independence with his clear understanding of the fake claims by the SNP pre-tending to support the least well off in our society – the very sector which would be hardest hit if Scotland separated from the UK. Indeed, Mr Galloway goes further and describes a breakaway Scotland as more akin to a partition of the UK with the danger of Ulsterisation of Scotland to follow. In other words, there could be regions of Scotland who voted to remain in a future referendum which may refuse to be dragged out of the Union if the independence camp won without a clear majority and Scots and armed forces based in England were denied the vote.

Ms Sturgeon once publicly admitted that nationalism must “transcend Brexit, oil and the economy” as she had effectively lost the economic case for independence since oil prices crashed. Interestingly the Alliance for Unity party uses a similar message but it claims its party transcends all political beliefs of the left, right and centre in their common cause to defeat nationalism. Having looked at the high-calibre candidates he has attracted thus far (across the political spectrum), “Gorgeous George” may just be on to a winning ticket and I for one would support his party on the list vote. We live in interesting times.

Ian Lakin, Aberdeen AB13.

I DISAGREE with Iain Gunn (Letters, August 22) that through the Scottish Parliamentary election in May 2021 voters will indicate if they wish to revisit the independence question. Whilst some may, others won’t. Who knows? His suggestion is simplistic and inevitably unrealistic as that election will be fought on other major issues than just independence. Inevitably there will be attacks on the SNP Govern-ment’s record over its years in office, on which even its supporters must recognise it is vulnerable.

Despite all this, Mr Gunn appears to be of the view that sufficient indication of support for another referendum will be demonstrated if current polls’ expectations that the SNP will win the most seats are correct. However, he needs to explain why he considers seats won through an election system devised to elect members to the Scottish Parliament should be preferred, as an indicator of voters' intentions on an independence referendum, to the total numbers of votes cast by the actual voters for the respective parties, supporting pro or con? Is he concerned that the latter is much closer to an actual referendum and could very well provide a majority of voters against independence?

On any fair analysis, the 2021 election cannot provide a compelling case for another referendum, how-ever much it is spun by those who want it to be.

Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.

SCOTLAND'S greatest gift to the world has been the Scottish diaspora. Many retain family and sentimental links to Scotland. Many are domiciled in rUK. Many would seek to become citizens of an independent Scotland, perhaps joint passport-holders. This privilege would be available especially to those born in Scotland but resident in rUK, among whom are my daughter and son. I consider that they should have a vote in any future Scottish independence referendum.

Michael Gove has aroused the anger of the SNP by proposing that hundreds of thousands of Scots living in rUK should be given a vote in a future independence referendum ("Swinney claims Westminster now ‘accepting the reality’ of second indy vote", The Herald, August 22). Michael Russell, the SNP's Constitution Minister, has accused Mr Gove of trying to gerrymander the vote. Gerrymandering is an attempt to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by adjusting district boundaries. Mr Russell alleges, but technically in error, what could be considered a variant of gerrymandering by expanding, or restricting, the voter pool for political advantage. The Scottish Government has engaged in variant gerrymandering by conferring voting rights upon those aged 16 years or older. The SNP may or may not be content with the outcome to date of such action, but cannot claim innocence.

William Durward, Bearsden.

APART from Alexander McKay’s unnecessary reference to foreigners and his forgetting that several democratic mandates exist for another referendum (Letters, August 24), there is no justification for people who have moved from Scotland to have a vote on our future.

Only those adults who live here and registered to pay income tax to the Scottish Government should have a vote in any Scottish referendum. Also, given the amount of “dirty money” funnelled to the EU Leave campaign, only individuals who are registered to pay Scottish income tax should be allowed to make donations to either side with a ban on corporate, business, trade union, trusts and association funding.

This would go some way to balancing the huge publicity advantage the No side has when London broadcasters who are hostile to independence dominate our TV news and current affairs programmes together with the bulk of the popular press owned outside Scotland that oppose our self-determination.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh EH9.

ALEXANDER McKay, like many of your other Unionist correspondents, is very good at complaining about independence and does not mind twisting facts to suit his case. Today he says if another referendum happens it will be “another once in a lifetime referendum forced upon us”. Nowhere in the 2014 referendum was there any legal commitment binding future politicians to such a scenario of a “once in a lifetime” Scottish referendum and I ask him to prove otherwise, whilst also defining the period of a lifetime.

Nicola Sturgeon has stated an independence referendum will feature in the 2021 Holyrood election manifesto and all Mr McKay has to do is muster support against a referendum and let the people choose, just as they have done with our current Holyrood Government and Westminster MPs. Mr McKay can be further assured that should such a referendum take place, he will have a second opportunity to muster further support to vote against Scotland being a sovereign country. It all seems very fair and democratic to me with no one forced to do anything, but perhaps Mr McKay thinks otherwise?

It is to be hoped that in their argument against independence, Unionists might wish to build their case by illustrating the specific benefits to Scotland from remaining within the Union other than the sheer incompetence of saddling us with unimaginable debt under the care of Westminster. It would certainly be a welcome change to the incessant negative carping we currently have to suffer.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

Read more: Letters: Unionists need to wake up now, before it is too late