IN recent days two correspondents of a Unionist persuasion have published letters setting out why Scotland should remain within the UK.

Where I agree with William Loneskie (September 23) is that independence is likely to be determined on the grounds of how many people continue to believe “it is far better that Scotland continues to be part of the world’s sixth-largest economy, while having one of the most devolved governments in the world.”

An important part of the argument for Mr Loneskie is that it is better to remain “part of the world’s sixth largest economy”.

However, that economy has just left the EU, appears ready to undermine any trade deal with its nearest neighbour and one of the largest trading blocs in the world, and in doing so is prepared to breach international law, albeit in a “specific and limited way” as if, “well, that’s okay then”.

Douglas Cowe, meantime, (September 24) adopts the Better Together approach we are familiar with of how Scotland will manage if independent and how much will it cost.

However, what neither of them considers is that the previous Unionist axiom of the risks of independence or “steady as she goes” in the UK, is no longer available. Whether independent or in the UK, Scotland will face challenges in the immediate future.

In this regard the warning offered by Kirsty Hughes, Director of Edinburgh University’s Scottish Centre on European Relations, that “if the UK government does not fall apart or lose support given its contempt for British democracy, then Scotland – if the independence majority grows – may have to look at other routes to independence in the face of an anarchic, maverick and unpredictable UK” is one that should be contemplated at length.

Certainly, Mr Loneskie’s belief that Scotland is better served remaining part of the UK is moot. However, Mr Cowe’s cost-based perspective is partial due to the possibility that some of the costs of remaining in an “anarchic, maverick and unpredictable UK” may not only be financial.

As convinced Unionists it appears that both correspondents consider remaining in the Union the correct thing to do, apparently no matter what. The election last year when the Prime Minister’s party lost more than half their Scottish representation, and opinion poll support for independence continuing to rise, however, suggests that the conduct of the Westminster government matters a great deal to the Scottish electorate and that Unionist arguments such as theirs are being seen through.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

AS a Yes voter in 2014 (albeit of a “neutral”, non-SNP fanatic kind), could someone explain to me the grounds on which Boris Johnson would concede a second independence referendum? As far as I can see, he has no reason whatsoever for granting us our wish – unfortunately.

R. Kemp, Glasgow.