Salmond should join the fight against United States of Europe

David Cameron opposed Mr Juncker's nomination because of his career-long commitment to the EU drive towards "ever-closer union". Is Mr Salmond on board with that vision? Is he seeking to dissolve Scotland's long-standing Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland in order instead steadily to cede more powers to the EU? I suspect not.

If Scotland secedes from the UK and seeks then to join the EU, it is likely that the process of joining will be harder with Mr Juncker in post. He will be more reluctant than most to agree arrangements with all the opt-outs and rebates the UK currently enjoys. Mr Salmond welcomes him simply because he comes from a small country, Luxembourg, but Mr Juncker's aim is for Luxembourg to become a federal entity of the EU.

It is possible to argue a case in favour of a United States of Europe, but few electors in Scotland or across the UK as a whole are ready to support that.

David Cameron's lonely stand appears to have triggered a wider interest in EU reform. Rationally and honestly, Mr Salmond should welcome and support Mr Cameron's thrust. But, given his love for the "yah-boo" approach to politics, he prefers to issue cheap and superficial sound bites.

Alan Roach,

93 Octavia Terrace,

Greenock.

As "Royal Week" in Edinburgh proceeds serenely in Her Majesty's presence, the First Minister, smiling genially, presents himself as Alex in Wonderland, astutely paying obeisance to royalty while his party mutters republicanism. It leads me to ask what actually constitutes "independence" for the SNP.

We know that the party has made no cultural case for independence, because Scotland has defined itself as British through the writings and ideas of the giants of the 18th century Enlightenment like Adam Smith, David Hume and Robert Burns. Distaste for the English is just childish and pathetic.

We know that the SNP has not produced any economic case for independence. All investigations by serious economists and research institutes predict considerable disruption to our well-being. The party and its leader produce windy and incredible claims of something better, just when the UK economy and Scotland are outperforming every economy in the western world.

So what remains of the argument for separatism? The SNP says it wants "the freedom to make our own choices" ("Tory MP's love message to Scotland cuts no ice with SNP counterpart", The Herald, July 2). But devolution already gives that freedom. And independence would not extend it because the SNP proposes to cede all powers over fiscal and monetary policy either to the rUK government, or to Berlin and Brussels in an "ever closer" European Union. With the fiscal stance (the overall balance of tax revenues and public spending) and the currency (sterling or the euro) and interest rates determined elsewhere, all a Holyrood government could do would be to squeeze the rich and middle-income groups and use the money to bribe the less well-off. And that would not last long as the better-off and their money redistributed themselves to the rUK.

So independence comes down to a self-defeating fiscal policy, a gravy train for self-serving politicians and their hangers-on here and in embassies abroad, plus no Trident and, thereby, fewer jobs on the Clyde and at Rosyth and no Nato membership. That is just a ridiculous manifesto. In Lewis Carroll's children's story, we remember the character of the Cheshire Cat. It disappeared, and all that was left was the grin. That sums up the emptiness of the SNP, its credo, its policies and its leader.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.

BETTER Together has been unfairly accused over recent months of scaremongering and playing a fear card, whereas it has, in the main, been presenting information in a logical and clear format. When this is presented in the media I expect the Yes advocates to come up with their own analysis of facts and information so that voters can then decide between contrasting sets of facts.

Often, however, in recent months I've felt the Yes camp is indulging in regular whingeing which I feel is churlish; in addition it doesn't move the debate forward.

Three examples come to mind; first, Kenny MacAskill's throwaway comment that "all English judges know about Scotland is gained from an annual visit to the Edinburgh Festival"; secondly, recent remarks from a Scottish Government source that "Alistair Darling's bleating can't hide the fact that Westminster is spending taxpayers' cash on aiding the No campaign" (so who paid for the Yes campaign's recently-produced book promoting independence and why use terms like "bleat"?).

Thirdly, I take note of Nicola Sturgeon's recent remark that "should the Prime Minister continue to duck the proposed TV debate the First Minister is willing to take on Alistair Darling as the Tories' nominated substitute".

Voters seek a reasoned debate from both sides, not a display of cheap jibes and personal invective. We see enough of that from cyber bullies.

Dr Brian Chaplin,

2 St Andrew's Square, Glasgow.

Andrew A Reid (Letters, July 2) suggests that there are examples of successful federal arrangements where the component parts are by no means equal.

He cites Australia, where New South Wales is much more populous than other states but the system works well.

What he does not say is that New South Wales has about 33% of the population of Australia. Its representatives, therefore, cannot overrule those from the other five states.

He does not compare that with the position in the UK. Here, England's population comprises about 85% of the total population of all four components of the UK. Therefore, England's representa­tives can force their will if they so want, no matter what the repre­sen­­tatives from the other parts wish.

Unless that imbalance is removed, all notions about federalism are utter fantasies.

John Scott Roy,

42 Galloway Avenue, Ayr.

DEFENCE Secretary Philip Hammond is in sympathy with Admiral Sir George Zambellas when he calls for both new aircraft carriers to be utilised to support global maritime security ("Two aircraft carriers needed to counter threat", The Herald, July 2).

Unfortunately , the cost of commissioning the second ship would be £70m annually and this would necessitate cuts elsewhere in the defence budget.

So what could possibly be cut to finance the use of this aircraft carrier so that the tax payer is not seen to have wasted £3bn?

The Army - no, that's already been cut to the bone; mothball some RAF bases - no, that's already been done; build fewer warships - too late, we've already got more admirals than ships.

If only there was some large expenditure that was anachronistic and completely unusable, like Trident, that could be abolished and ... wait a minute ...

James Mills,

29 Armour Square,

Johnstone.

MICHELLE Mone has vowed that she will leave the country in the event of Scotland voting for independence, so let's hope for her sake that she doesn't have to contend with the principal of the University of Strathclyde's parties for too long ("Mone: I do not want students living next door", The Herald, July 2).

It must be hard for her.

James Young,

90 Mitchell Street,

Glasgow.

PEOPLE up and down the country in small halls and community centres are being denied the opportunity to debate the issues.

The Better Together campaign is failing to provide both speakers and information stalls. This is either wilful policy or chronic inefficiency.

From organisers of meetings throughout the country come reports of difficulties in dealing with the Better Together campaign. Better Together has no right to deny the people of Scotland the right to debate issues.

In order to advance the democratic process this issue should be raised as a matter of serious concern.

Susan Brown,

128/5 Pleasance,

Edinburgh.