RUTH Marr (Letters, April 2) takes Peter A Russell to task for considering Scotland to be a region of the UK as though this were simply a matter of opinion. But of course Mr Russell is stating a fact and so prominent a figure of the Scottish political scene as Ms Marr should be aware of Scotland's long history as a region, not of the UK only but of the EU.

In 1971 Brussels produced a map showing its proposed regionalisation of Great Britain, a requirement of its conditions for future EEC membership; the 12 regions depicted there, with one slight modification, are what exist today. They were set up so that financial assistance could be directed to smaller units of administration than those of member states, thus facilitating a more equitable distribution of income between prosperous and less developed areas under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

As for Ms Marr's main theme, that Scotland has a government it did not vote for, when did our neighbour-region, north-east England, ever vote for a Tory government at Westminster? There is certainly a case for Scotland as an independent nation, a status to which north-east England cannot aspire, becoming a member rather than a region of the EU but the European Commission, as “guardian of the treaties”, has ruled that independence must precede acceptance and that Scotland would need to join the queue of applicants.

The word “region” is capable of many interpretations, from merely anatomical to vast geographical areas like the Middle East, and special confusion exists in Scotland where it is considered principally in the context of local government; it is time that politicians and commentators made the distinction between Scottish region and European region clear. In particular the SNP should cease juggling the words “region” and “member” and acknowledge Scotland's real position in Europe both as an actual region and as a potential member state where, of course, in a democracy it could still find itself under a government elected by a minority of voters and moreover still subject almost entirely to legislation originating not in Westminster but in Brussels.

(Mrs) Mary Rolls,

1 Carlesgill Cottages, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire.

IN her riposte (Letters, April 2) to Peter Russell, Ruth Marr cites again the disingenuous SNP mantra that in terms of Westminster "in Scotland we get governments which Scotland did not vote for" . Against this, many of us in Scotland did vote Conservative and therefore got the Government "we" voted for. Also, in the independence referendum Scotland voted to remain in the UK and thus be governed by the Westminster government, subject to the devolution of agreed powers.

Finally, in any event the SNP has no ambition to form the Westminster government as it does not stand candidates in a sufficient number of constituencies, so the mantra is no more than a self- fulfilling prophecy.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View, Dunlop.

KEVIN McKenna states that he would be “shouting about another referendum at every available opportunity (“Turning victory into defeat is a desperately foolish strategy”, The Herald, April 2). He is misjudging the situation if he believes that the “upwardly mobile trajectory” in the Nationalist vote is attributable largely to more and more Scots seeking to secure independence.

The main reason for the upsurge in voting for the SNP, both at Holyrood and at Westminster, is the lack of electoral appeal of the alternatives. The election results for Holyrood in 2011, when the SNP secured a majority, (69 out of 129 seats), contrary to what proportional representation was supposed to allow, and for Westminster in 2015, when the SNP secured 56 out of 59 seats, were beyond even the wipe-out of Conservative MPs in Scotland in 1997.

The Labour Party in Scotland, having gone through an extraordinary number of leaders since devolution, appears to have lost any ability to grasp the political agenda in a positive way which could appeal to the voters. Ruth Davidson has a massive task in dealing with the fact that Conservatism, since the days of Thatcherism, is a distinct minority interest in Scotland, and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have been irrelevant largely as a result of their coalition with the Conservatives at Westminster.

Many Scots, accordingly, have formed the view that, in view of past failures, both of leadership and policies at Holyrood, they were seeking those who could make the Parliament operate effectively, and further that they wanted representatives at Westminster who were prepared to ensure where possible that Scotland’s interests were effectively reflected.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

BASED on data from the World Bank and the IMF, the Global Finance Magazine has ranked the world's 25 richest countries according to their GDP/capita based on their purchasing power parity. Here is what the table shows:

All six Middle East oil-rich countries in the Gulf Co-operation Council make it, thanks obviously to their oil wealth.

Canada and the United States are there.

Germany and France, along with seven other old EU15 countries make the top 25, even Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark. However, non-EU European countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are also on the list, so it seems that membership of the EU is not a magic bullet.

More than half the countries in this top 25 are around the same population size or smaller than Scotland, so population size does seem to matter, that is, it is probably an advantage to be about the same size as Scotland.

However, the UK does not make the top 25.

So what can we say about Scotland? We are a small country that has been a major oil producer for the past 40 years. Over that period we have probably produced more than five times what we have consumed which made us, like Norway and the six GCC countries, a major exporter of oil. Yet, with the recent drop in the oil price we have somehow become a country with one of the biggest budget deficits in the world, proof that we could never afford to become independent. How come?

Over that 40 years all the real levers of economic power have been with Westminster. So what went wrong?

It is surely for Messrs Davidson, Dugdale, and Rennie to explain why Scotland is in this position rather than use their own interpretation of GERS figures to beat the Scottish electorate with their scare stories.

If it really were true that the present fiscal situation in Scotland was as bad as they say, there could be no greater argument in favour of Scottish independence. To remain in a UK that itself cannot now get into the top 25 of the world's richest countries, when so many other small self-governing countries, with and without oil, within Europe or around the world, in or out of the EU, are there, will surely be a bit perverse. That is the message and case we should now be preparing for the next referendum.

What this prosperity table shows is that Scotland is surrounded by similar small countries who are more prosperous than we are and we are unlikely ever to join them if we remain as an appendage part of a UK in which all the important levers of policy remain with Westminster.

Nick Dekker,

1 Nairn Way, Cumbernauld.