Our northern neighbours offer alternatives to EU membership

We need to take a closer look at how our neighbours, Norway and Iceland, view membership of the EU and consider whether the alternatives to EU membership for Scotland would better serve our nation's interests.

Norway has twice put EU membership to a vote in referendums and each time the population has voted against. Since the last of these two referendums in 1994, the majority of Norwegians against EU membership has grown steadily and now stands at more than 70%.

In Iceland's case, the people voted in a new government last April which was pledged to end negotiations to join the EU - principally because they feared they would lose their exclusive fishing rights within Iceland's 200 nautical miles fishing zone and have them replaced with EU fishing quotas.

As in the case of the choice of currency, we should see the hostility of Mr Barroso to Scotland's EU membership as an opportunity, not a threat - an opportunity to discuss whether EU membership is really in Scotland's best interest.

If you look at Scotland's main exports, oil, whisky and services (especially tourism), none of these is going to be severely impacted by non-membership of the EU. As far as fisheries is concerned we would be able to declare an exclusive fishing zone similar to Iceland's which could be accessed only by Scottish fishermen. And we could tailor subsidies to Scottish farmers which are suited to their special needs.

The alternatives could include membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) of which Norway is a member. Members of the EEA include EU states. Countries in the EEA enjoy free trade with the EU at the price of a contribution to the EU budget without having a vote in EU decisions. But crucially, both fisheries and agriculture are not covered by this.

Another alternative is to enter into bilateral trade agreements with EU states, a course followed by Switzerland. That could also be adopted by Scotland. So lack of EU membership would not be the end of the world for an independent Scotland.

Malcolm Christie,

1 Drumclog Avenue,

Milngavie.

MR Barroso's comparison of Kosovo with an independent Scotland is ridiculous. Spain does not recognise the independence of Kosovo, but then again nor do another 84 UN countries. Kosovo is therefore not a member of the UN. Spain and these other countries do not recognise Kosovo's independence, due to Serbia not agreeing to Kosovo's independence. Kosovo cannot join the EU because not only obviously Spain, but also Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Cyprus do not recognise its independence.

Two weeks ago Spain's Foreign Minister, José-Manuel García-Margallo, said: "If Scotland becomes independent in accordance with the legal and institutional procedures, it will ask for admission. If that process has indeed been legal, that request can be considered."

Spain would not agree to Catalonia becoming independent, because it is would be against the Spanish constitution. Furthermore if Spain disagreed with Scotland being in the EU, it would to lose access to Scottish fishing waters.

Spain seems to have no problem with the possible accession of Montenegro into the EU. The European Council endorsed the commission's assessment that Montenegro complies with the membership criteria, and negotia­tions with Montenegro concerning EU membership started on June 29, 2012. Montenegro voted for independence from a union with Serbia in 2006; Montenegro's independence has been recognised by Serbia, and all EU member states.

Furthermore Spain did not veto Slovenia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czech Republic, and Slovakia joining the EU.

Thomas Murray,

127 Cairns Crescent, Perth.

ALEX Salmond is right to dismiss Chancellor George Osborne's flying visit to Scotland as irrelevant, and his treatment of the people of Scotland as arrogant and contemptuous ("Salmond economic experts in fresh talks over currency", The Herald, February 18). He describes Mr Osborne's refusal to consider a currency union in the event of a Yes vote as a "George Tax" on businesses on both sides of the Border. Perhaps "Gideon Tax" would have been even more appropriate, since that is Mr Osborne's actual first name, and in the original Hebrew language it means "the Destroyer". Clearly the Chancellor is intent on destroying any possibility of an amicable settlement following the September referendum, and instead creating a festering resentment in future relations between Scots and their immediate neighbours in the rest of the UK. That is a very mistaken and short-sighted policy, whatever the outcome of the independence vote.

The claim by the Principal Secretary of the Treasury that English taxpayers would have to bail out "Scottish" banks if they collapse again at some future date is complete nonsense. HBOS and RBS may still have Scotland in their name and have nominal headquarters in Edinburgh, but their retail business is conducted throughout the United Kingdom; almost all their invest­ment banking operations take place in the City of London. The Bank of Scotland was merged with the Halifax Business Society years ago and is now part of the Lloyds Banking Group. The shareholders of both HBOS and RBS are spread throughout the UK and include almost all of the UK's major pensions and investment companies. If these banks failed again through rash financial activities that would be a disaster for the whole of the UK, and have very little to do with their tenuous Scottish connections.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

FOR months, the Yes campaign has argued that the rest of the UK would take a rational and pragmatic approach after independence and agree a currency union, because it is in their best interests. Last week, the Westminster parties all firmly rejected that idea. This week, Alex Salmond calls their stance "insulting" and "demeaning" to Scots, and says the "bullying" will cause Scottish voters to react by voting Yes.

In other words, according to Alex Salmond, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish can and will make rational and pragmatic decisions about Scottish independence. Scottish voters, on the other hand, faced with their most important decision in three centuries, can be relied upon to vote emotionally, founding their choice in a mixture of historical grievance and spite for southern Tory toffs.

Someone please remind us now: which campaign is insulting and demeaning to Scots?

Trevor Fenton,

9/4 William Street,

Edinburgh.