FOR some time now we have seen evidence of decline in the independence debate (“SNP has sucked life out of independence campaign”, Neil Mackay, The Herald, September 21; “Nicola Sturgeon’s opponents no longer believe she is serious about independence”, Adam Tomkins, The Herald, September 22 and "Is Scotland lacking a serious debate about independence?”, Kirsty Hughes, The Herald, October 12).

Perhaps the focus has moved on from the referendum of 2014 when the question was “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Now almost nobody maintains that Scotland should be an independent country. Even although many still talk about independence it is far from clear what is meant by that usage and there is more or less unanimity that Scotland should be in a union, whether it be the UK or the EU. The word independence now appears to be more of a signal of rejection of the UK rather than of union in principle. Any debate that explores the concept of independence in the true meaning of the word is therefore irrelevant to the mainstream of current concern and unlikely to lead us out of the present political quagmire.

The central question now therefore seems to ask which union would be best suited to the future, primarily of Scotland but also, as Scotland is traditionally an outward-looking nation, to the wider context of the common good. Rather than grieve the demise of the independence debate I am looking to explore the indicators as to what the future may hold in each of the unions respectively: what would be the respective prospects for peace, prosperity, internal dissension and hostilities, climate control, currency control, geopolitical and border dispute, education and cultural exchange, immigration management, civil and military use of nuclear power, public health, individual liberty and public order and national autonomy within each union and so on.

These are complex issues and many people prefer to focus on one word, Yes or No, which is akin to walking blindfold into the future and not representative of Scottish intellect.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

DOUBLE STANDARDS ON BORDERS

THE Westminster Conservative Government, wearing its Brexiter hat, assures us that there is no need for a border across Ireland to facilitate trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic. When it switches to wearing its unionist hat it insists that border checks and delays will be unavoidable between England and an independent Scotland which rejoins the EU.

Perhaps our man in Marbella will explain these contradictory positions upon his return.

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.

PLEASE RECONSIDER FREEPORT SNUB

COULD I appeal to Nicola Sturgeon to reconsider her decision to not progress with the UK freeport model?

As a north-east businessman, and provider of employment opportunities for local people, I find this decision very hard to understand in the present economic climate.

Instead of collaboration for the benefit of all, we have the same old response of refusing to cooperate for the desires of a few.

Putting politics, and ambition for independence, over and above the well-being of our economy and employment benefits of the people seems to be the hallmark of our present Government.

When will this change?

Graham Whitbourn, Balmedie.

DANGER OF CONTROL OF CARE SERVICE

MANY independence supporters working in local authorities have had their commitment undermined by the contradictory demands from the Scottish Government for both maximum devolution within the UK and maximum centralisation within Scotland.

I believe in devolution as a principle. So when we could see that Westminster was staging a power grab after Brexit I was appalled. But when I saw the Scottish Government’s plans to nakedly grab power by taking all social work and social care services into the control of a huge national quango to be called the National Care Service I was even more alarmed.

It would seem that in spite of the examples of how big, centrally-managed quangos do not work (we now apparently have students and soldiers driving ambulances for the centrally-managed Scottish Ambulance Service), the Scottish Government is set on wresting control and power not just from Westminster, but also from Scottish local authorities and local communities.

It is hard to defend the Scottish Government from allegations of hypocrisy and snatching control for its own sake when it carries on like this.

Such concentration of power at the centre of any country in a command and control structure is both dangerous and undemocratic and not the vision of a free Scotland so many of us hoped to see in our lifetimes.

K Heath, Kirriemuir.

REAL CONCERNS ON ASSISTED DYING

THERE is abroad again the contentious issue of a campaign to legalise assisted dying.

It is so hard for relatives to watch a loved one suffering extreme pain which even palliative medication cannot ease. One has to have sympathy for those suffering and those watching them suffering, but there is the concern that to open the door to assisted dying legally may amount to creating the conditions where assisted dying becomes a norm in much the same way that abortion is taken today as an everyday occurrence.

Safeguards were supposed to have been put in place to ensure that abortion did not just become abortion on demand, which is, however, the way it looks today.

The cavalier suggestion about taking a decision via a Zoom consultation with the terminally ill patient ("Videolink plan for assisted dying sparks ethics fears", The Herald, October 14) does not smack of a sufficient safeguard to protect the interests of that particular patient.

Then there is the question of who will administer the prescribed final injection or give the last tablet or draught to help the patient pass over peacefully. If any such decision has to be made, it is vital that the doctor should be present, alone with the patient physically, to determine the patient's state of mind and the path the patient wishes to take with regard to assisted dying.

If the patient is determined to go ahead with ending life, then there has to be consideration as to who will administer the final draught, since there are bound to be feelings of guilt to contend with for the person or persons executing the ending of another's life.

Christianity has taught us that life is sacred and we should interfere with neither the introduction nor the ending of life.

For many of faith, and not just the Christian faith, assisted dying would be a step in the wrong direction in that they would feel it opens the floodgates to what would amount to a culture of expected or enforced death for anyone struck down with any terminal condition for which medical science has not yet found a cure.

To me, there is no need to strive officiously to keep alive any patient for whom there is no cure but neither is there any good reason for hastening someone's end when medical science can come up with effective palliative treatments to ease the afflictions of patients in distress.

I know that I could not in all conscience agree to the administration of a fatal dose nor administer such a dose to anyone trapped by a terminal condition. If the powers that be sign such a law into force, there will have to be real and genuine safeguards built into the law without any possibility of evasion of those safeguards, as sadly has happened down through the years with abortion.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

ABORTION IS NOT HEALTHCARE

IF only there were more MSPs like John Mason willing to take a stand against abortion and attend pro-life vigils ("SNP MSP John Mason admits attending anti-abortion ‘vigil’ outside hospital", The Herald, October 15). I consider that the brutal and horrific act of abortion is the greatest crime against humanity in our so-called enlightened and progressive age and more politicians should take a stand like Mr Mason. We say it is good to be anti-slavery; good to be anti-racism; and good to be anti-trafficking. I would add that it is also good to be anti-abortion.

The Back off Scotland campaign continues to push the false narrative that pro-life vigils harass and intimidate vulnerable women. However, FOI requests to Police Scotland and various NHS boards have shown that there has never been one single case of harassment or intimidation reported. Back Off Scotland has also never produced any evidence of its claims.

In reality, abortion is not healthcare. It doesn't make a baby healthier and it doesn't make a woman healthier. It just kills. Our society should offer compassion, love, and advocacy to women and their unborn children – not encourage abortion.

Martin Conroy, Cockburnspath, Berwickshire.