A far cry from a reasoned and calm independence debate

His constant cutting across the limited time allocated to the other speaker was bad-mannered at the very least but, it seems to me, indicative of something more obvious. Fear.

When you are losing an argument and being outmanouvred at every turn, shout over the other speaker. It might make Mr Sarwar feel strong and in control but such macho posturing does nothing to advance the case for staying within Westminster control.

Once again, and with a calm and self-assured performance, Ms Sturgeon destroyed her opposition and put forward the case for independence. It behoves the media managers of the No campaign to rethink their strategy - we can all see through Project Fear and we are all tired of being shouted at and told "it can't be done".

Thank you, Nicola, for a performance that shows the vacuity of those who are playing the fear card. I only hope Labour supporters are cringing at the paucity of Mr Sarwar's performance and anyone who might still be considering their vote in the referendum witnessed the pathetic posturings of his very poor performance.

Dr Graeme Finnie

Albert Street.Blairgowrie.

How refreshing to see that Ian Mann is freely admitting the Yes campaign is foundering ("Forget squabbling over polls and get back to the real issues", September 6, Letters). However, he is mistaken in thinking the campaign can be revived by a Braveheart-type figure, when the truth of the matter is that the electorate, which is more sophisticated than given credit for, have realised that there is no substance or reality to the Nationalist claims that Utopia is round the corner, if only we would vote for them.

Why would anyone other than the deluded choose to vote for what at best would be an uncertain future, the SNP has yet to produce any policies, which make fiscal sense. (readers no doubt can recall Mr Salmond's infamous "arc of prosperity" statement about an independent Scotland aligning themselves with the Irish Republic and Iceland) and look at the outcome of what happened to these countries, as one example of the type of reckless fiscal policy which they would pursue in the event of Independence.

Is this really what the SNP wants for an Independent Scotland. Perhaps the Yes campaign should concentrate on trying to explain of the how rather than the why of indepence. A task I think too far for any Braveheart.

The Yes campaign have yet to realise that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can"t fool all of the people all of the time.

J Russell

Paisley.

Recently I met with relatives born and bred in Glasgow who now live in Surrey, South Britain. They are proud to call themselves Scots and they told me they are angry and frustrated in not being able to have any say in next September's vote.

They pointed out that if there is a Yes vote here it will have some large consequences for all in the present United Kingdom, not just Scotland in terms of the Constitution of this island's governance. There is no written Constiution for the UK, it is whatever the Westminster parliament says it is.

I dug out the population statistics from the UK Governmentt Regions last year and these vary from 2.372 million for East Anglia to 8.523 million for the south-east of England (London 7.825 million) and Scotland 5.222 million.

I was invited to Jean McFadden's flat for a Sunday lunch in 1998 where Donald Dewar was also present. Just three of us. He was then Secretary of State and was busy drafting the 1999 Scotland Bill that was enacted to give us the Holyrood Parlaiment the following year.

I asked him why the Blair Government was not giving the same powers to the English Regions that the Scots/Welsh/Northern Irish devolved parliaments were likely to get.

His answer was direct, short and simple: "The English don't want it, Arnold." That was 15 years ago. I wonder what his answer would be now.

We hear a lot now about devo-max not being on the ballot paper next year with claims this is likely to be what most Scots would favour.

This linked with odd soundings that Westminster next year might or could make radical changes to the 1999 Scotland Act giving extra powers to the Holyrood Parliament, if the Union is retained.

The Unionist side of the referendum (both at Holyrood and Westminster) is reluctant to mention the future governance of the UK following next September's poll but I am surprised there has been no mention of the possible constitutional changes that may result from our poll, especially if there is a retention of the Union for Scotland.

One way for those at Westminster to ensure the Union remains for all four nations in the UK would be for Westminster to concern itself with roreign affairs, and defence and leave all other matters (education, health etc) to be organised in the same way that presently Scotland oversees all non-reserved matters. In other words a federal/quasi-federal system of government for the whole of the UK with local tax rates to partially fund common services being set by these "regional" governments. The relative populations of the English regions above are similar to Scotland so why not give them the same powers presently operated by Holyrood.

Surely some political parties within the UK who claim to wish the Union to continue are discussing such a scenario, but we hear nothing about this; despite several letters in the past year to political leaders at Westminster. I have yet to receive even an acknowledgement to any letter I have sent to them on the possible federal solution to Britain's future Unionist governance.

This makes me conform to the thought that Westminster is unfit, nay unable, to deal with matters it should be tackling. Where are the statesmen these days? Lining their pockets in the City of London ?

Arnold Bell,

Glasgow.