THE headline-grabbing news last week stating that Scotland's national debt is higher per capita than anywhere else in the UK ("Deficit four times bigger for Scotland than the UK", The Herald, August 23) merits closer examination.

Readers will recall that back in 2014 (pre-independence referendum), in order for the remaining section of the British state to be seen as the “successor state”, it would be the Westminster Government’s responsibility to absorb 100 per cent of the UK’s current national debt, freely offered by the then UK Government. This means that independent Scotland will start with no foreign debt – but it might take some of the UK(remaining)’s debt for a share in mutually held assets. The precedent for this position was Russia absorbing all the debt of the USSR following the break-up of the Soviet Union.

The reports have generally appeared to consider that Scotland’s GERS spending shows Scotland taking out more in public spending than it contributes. However closer examination of the actual figures shows that excluding London and the south-east of England (with all its millionaires, HQs and finance control to pull the UK’s average up), Scotland as a country performs remarkably well in comparison to the remaining territories and can be demonstrably be shown to be the third richest in the UK.

My understanding is that an independent Scotland will create completely different priorities from that which pervades Westminster thinking; for instance, the cost of Trident (£16 billion) does not have much support north of the Border.

The self-aggrandisement of the flagship projects, (for which Scotland has to contribute to, but gains little if any benefit but is included in GERS), cost for example: £18 bn for refurbishment of the London Underground; £16bn for a new sewage tunnel in London; £5.7bn refurbishment of Westminster; £8bn spent on the “London” Olympics; £1bn refurbishment of St Pancras Station in London (that well serves the west of England). Up here in Scotland, our cities have to fund the provision of public amenities, and other expenditure would be paid by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government funded the new Forth crossing, below cost, which was constructed ahead of schedule. Why then, is the vast cost of these English projects being included as an apportioned cost for Scotland to bear, in GERS?

Scotland’s trade balance constantly outperforms the UK with its figure being, in 2017, £128.2bn in the red, with Scotland being £4.6bn in the black.

When power production in Scotland is under Scottish control (it’s currently one of the many reserved powers retained by Westminster), proper infrastructure spending could mean tapping and exporting our renewably sourced electrical power generation, from tidal, wave, wind, hydro and even solar renewable sources to provide about 25 per cent of Europe’s current electrical requirement. Scotland is a country: big enough; rich enough; smart enough.

Keith MacLeod,

1 Badger Park, Broxburn.

MARTIN Redfern (Letters, August 25) fails to acknowledge that the GERS figures highlight the failure of successive UK governments to manage Scotland's economy when compared to Norway or even Ireland.

Much of the estimated deficit could be wiped out if, for example, a Scottish government charged £10 for every barrel of oil extracted, as was the case in the UK in 2010 when production costs were double but the price was the same as today, then Scotland would earn £6 billion in tax revenue compared to £1bn allocated by GERS.

Scotland is charged a pro rata £3.18bn a year as its share of UK defence costs but only half of that figure is spent in Scotland, while independent Ireland only spends £1bn each year.

We are also charged £3.6bn for our share of interest on the UK's national debt, which we are not legally liable for without a share of the UK's total assets, and could be traded against Trident being allowed to remain for a few years until another location is found.

All countries, including the UK, run deficits and our fiscal position is better than any other part of the UK outside London and the south-east as the UK remains by a vast margin, the most regionally unequal country in the EU.

If we are to remain in the UK then it is up to politicians to urgently address the increasing concentration of economic activity in London and the south-east.

Mary Thomas,

Watson Crescent, Edinburgh.

MARTIN Redfern is right to point out the economic conditions that would make an independent Scotland’s EU entry unlikely, or even impossible.

Nicola Sturgeon seems determined to compound the problem by antagonising Spain should her visit to Catalonia to meet the Catalan president Quim Torra go ahead.

She would be well advised to get the advice of a good Spanish lawyer or legal experts at the British Embassy before her trip. Spain’s laws on foreigners entering the country and meddling in their internal constitutional affairs are not so relaxed as they are in the UK and she would not want to end up in court.

Keith Shortreed,

Cottown of Gight, Methlick, Aberdeenshire.

READING Mark Smith's article ("The uncomfortable truths we've learned from the Salmond claims", The Herald, August 27) left me feeling rather uncomfortable that there is apparently a strata in Scottish society where moral standards are so low that without being given specific information on the alleged offence a person is unable to deny carrying out a sexual assault.

John Jamieson,

37 Echline Place,

South Queensferry.

OH, the bittersweet irony. No doubt Alex Salmond’s followers spent the weekend in a frenzy, trying to decide against whom they should protest. It is ironic that their favourite bogeymen, the UK Government and the BBC, took no part in the current accusations against him.

They could only march and protest about a set of rules, presumably designed to encourage and protect victims, introduced by their own Scottish Government.

Alexander McKay,

8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh.

WHAT is the "sovereign will of the people"? The fact that we have regular General Elections suggests that the sovereign will is not something fixed forever in stone, but subject to reversals or revisions of opinion. Should the same principles not apply to referenda? When new facts emerge or when we lose faith in the elected government, surely we are entitled to be consulted?

Angus J Kennedy,

63 Galbraith Drive, Milngavie.