WHAT is the point of having a Scottish Parliament? My understanding is that it gives us the opportunity for doing things in a different way to the rest of the UK if we judge that following a different route is in our interests. We can make our own laws and raise our own money to give ourselves maximum flexibility.

Here now is an opportunity to demonstrate those powers since the SNP disagrees with the decision of the UK Government to roll back Covid restrictions ("Sturgeon under pressure as Johnson axes all Covid rules", The Herald, February 22).Will we see additional tax money raised in Scotland through the budget to be spent on this, or will we simply hear a bumping of gums followed by the inevitable acceptance of the new measures?

The evidence of the Scottish Parliament working for more than 20 years now is that it has never had the maturity to use its powers in the way intended. Indeed, they would like the public to believe that we don’t have these powers at all. As others have noted, after nearly two years of differentiated Covid response in Scotland, the overall outcome from the pandemic has been more or less the same, and in some ways, much worse. So much for all the talk.

Victor Clements, Aberfeldy.

SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE BEEN CRIPPLED

THE SNP is up in arms regarding the divergence of rules within the UK and the impact of decisions made at the UK Government level on the administrations running Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As if they actually need to have a reason, yet again this will inevitably be used by the separatists to say that independence is the answer. Perhaps they could explain where the funding for the vaccine programme and the furlough scheme would have come from.

The term “free Covid tests” is a much-used phrase that nationalists use to describe anything that is provided by the Government to the end user at no cost. There is however a cost (£2 billion for January alone) and there is never an answer forthcoming from the SNP on how Scotland would have been able to borrow the amounts that we have seen come our way as part of a bigger entity.

An independent Scotland would have been beholden to extortionate borrowing rates that would have crippled the country for decades to come. No amount of natural resources, which is regularly an explanation of our wealth, would have funded what we have seen over the last two years. It is exasperating to encounter individuals who believe that independence will make everything so much better. It may be so easy to believe but the reality should not be denied. Being part of the UK gives us access to funding and cheaper borrowing than we could ever dream of as a standalone country.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

WHAT PRICE RESPONSIBILITY?

I MAY have hallucinated it but I swear that Boris Johnson has just commended relying upon people’s sense of responsibility. That would be people other than him – a man who takes no responsibility for any of his words, deeds or actions. He’s a reckless huckster and self-serving wretch with no thought but for himself and who is taking a gamble on the health of the country simply to preserve his position.

Shame upon those who continue to enable this dangerous and deluded chancer.

Grant McKechnie, Glasgow.

* ONE wonders how many of the millions of free lateral flow testing kits issued have not been used. I suspect a large proportion of them are lying about in their original boxes. When you give out things free some recipients may have a cavalier attitude to what they are given. The same could be said for free prescriptions. How many are being stowed away in a drawer and not taken as prescribed?

William Loneskie, Lauder.

UNIONISTS CANNOT IGNORE INDY

ALISTAIR Tuach (Letters, February 22) believes the SNP will remain in power for many years if Scotland achieves independence. This view is shared by your columnist Neil Mackay, who goes further by saying “Only a fool wouldn’t see that the party which leads the nation into independence will determine the future ‘shape’ of an independent Scotland” ("Independence is our best future – despite the SNP", The Herald, February 17). Presumably this is because the SNP was the political party in government at the time, with no effective opposition at all.

For those who do not wish the SNP to continue in power after independence, I would contend the fools will be those political parties which fail to prepare for independence. If they continue in their ostrich-like denial to independence, it is they and not the SNP who will be found wanting. Does anyone actually believe that in the event of independence, the existing unionist parties are going to self-destruct? Of course not, they will reform and some may merge or form new parties which could oust the SNP if that is what the people wanted.

The unionist parties cannot ignore independence. Just as they demand continual answers from the SNP, it is now time for them to break silence and tell us of their policies if Scotland continues in the Union. Equally if Scotland votes Yes to independence, these same parties must provide some answers to what they will offer Scotland. Failure to do so may indeed ensure the SNP remains in power. It is simply not good enough for Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour and others to say they do not believe in independence and are not going to discuss it, that is kindergarten politics. They have a duty to do so if it becomes clear independence is in the ascendancy.

Before any referendum takes place, the SNP should detail the transition process and how it will work and what would happen the day after Scotland votes for independence. It is my view transition could take a decade working on the positives for the long term, during which many of the unanswered questions on independence will become clear. Transference of assets and setting up the apparatus for a new state does not need to be taken at speed, but at a steady pace observing due diligence to the benefit of both sides and what things we will continue to share. Indeed, whilst negotiations proceed behind the scenes, little may appear to be changing, but Scotland will be independent.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

INDYREF WOULD SOLVE NOTHING

I MUST confess to having been staggered by the lack of understanding of the Scottish psyche displayed by Andy Maciver (“We can’t begin to sort Scotland’s problems until we hold another independence vote”, The Herald, February 22).

He states “we are stuck in treacle. We are shouting at each other but saying nothing”. I would have thought that the position of Union supporters like myself was quite clear. What we are saying is “stop shouting at us”. I also do not see how we are stuck in treacle. The matter was resolved in the 2014 independence referendum and the side that lost its argument has ceaselessly continued attempts to sabotage Scotland’s hopes of attracting investment into a confident, positive, stable and secure part of a powerful inter-dependent UK. If devolution of power and responsibility has not been a success it is not the fault of Westminster, but that of Holyrood and the SNP.

The international reputation of the belligerent Scot is well founded, as we have seen ever since 2014 and I do not foresee this characteristic being diluted by independence. In fact, if 51 per cent voted for Scottish independence in Mr Maciver’s unwise and ineffective solution it is obvious that the “bored and demanding child model” the SNP has adopted would then be embraced by the rest of us. We would be constantly calling for political reunification with Wales, Northern Ireland and England. How could it possibly be otherwise? After all, being discontented seems from the evidence to be the thing we Scots do best of all.

Bill Brown, Milngavie.

SO WHAT IS OUR PLACE?

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY endorse the central point made by Andy Maciver, that Scotland cannot move on without making a constitutional choice. Sadly, we have at Westminster a Government and main Opposition who extol the virtues of “the freedom to choose your own path” for some nations but veto that option for Scotland.

It would be helpful if political parties based in Scotland could iterate what they consider Scotland’s “place in the UK” to be, and what should happen if no referendum mandate is recognised, because that would imply that Scotland lacks any constitutional standing within the UK. Agreeing to a referendum would not alter the ability of unionists to campaign against independence.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

Read more: Never forget Nicola Sturgeon chose division over reconciliation