AS the rhetoric is stepped up by Nicola Sturgeon and her supporters for a second independence referendum one is left wondering whether the economic case for independence will be made at the forthcoming SNP spring conference in Aberdeen. After all the data from GERS is easily available, as it is compiled by their own statisticians and economists in the Office of the Chief Economist Advisor of the Scottish Government.

If not, could it be that such a presentation would go down like a lead balloon, as recent figures confirm that our fiscal deficit would rank worst out of all the 34 OECD countries and as such we would be in a major financial crisis on day one of independence? In this regard most of us will remember the recent Greek financial crisis when the voters turned down measures to address their deficit and were seen dancing in the streets in delight, yet only one week later had to accept a far worse austerity package handed down by the European troika (European Commission, International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank) and none of us wants to see a repeat performance here in Scotland if we became independent.

The key lesson for us all is that international creditors who would have to bankroll an independent Scotland are not interested in so-called grievances, flag-waving crowds, stories about untold wealth hidden under the North Sea, about green energy, pie in the sky savings and so on. But what they would be interested in are the hard numbers issued by GERS (verified by the IMF), what currency could Scotland be able to use and at what cost, plus the impact of losing Scotland's largest single market (the UK) for trade, period.

In summary, if Ms Sturgeon demands another referendum at the conference and wishes to have any credibility with voters and the international community she must spell out at conference Scotland's fiscal deficit and explain where the cuts would come in the public sector and where the penal tax increases would be made if we became independent. I won’t hold my breath.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

AS we edge ever closer to the expected call for a second independence referendum it is interesting to see a key figure in the SNP distancing the new approach to independence from the flawed case made in 2014 (“SNP review chief admits Salmond wrong on oil ‘bonus claim”, The Herald, March 7). Andrew Wilson has the unenviable task of leading the SNP’s Growth Commission, looking to turn the SNP’s previous economic proposition on its head, and somehow making sense of dealing with an unsustainable fiscal deficit – currently at £15 billion – without the safety net of funding from the rest of the UK or the agreed use of an established currency.

Mr Wilson’s comments so far about smaller countries than Scotland developing workable growing economies suggest the clue is in his commission’s title. The new mantra will be for Scotland to “grow” its way out of trouble, rather than oil providing the fuel for breaking away from the UK. Growth is an enticing prospect of course, as long as you have a credible route of getting from the real world we live in right now to those greener future pastures. The trouble for the SNP is that having got it so badly wrong less than three years ago, the people of Scotland are justified in being all the more sceptical this time round.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

YOUR correspondent Archie Burleigh (Letters, March 7) reminds Ruth Marr (Letters, March 4) and others that the Government was carrying out its 2015 manifesto commitment in calling the Brexit referendum.

It is also worth pointing out that the Brexit referendum was well signalled before and priced in to the 2104 Independence referendum.

In fact, the Scottish Government's Minister for International Affairs, the SNP's Humza Yousaf himself told us that "the only threat to Scotland's place in Europe comes from Westminster's Ukip agenda and David Cameron's proposed in-out referendum".

It is possible that Mr Yousaf has such a negligible impact on politics that no-one notices or cares what he says. However, it is absurd for anyone - least of all Scottish Nationalists – to pretend that they did not know that when Scotland voted against independence, this included accepting the possibility that the UK might leave the EU.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

ROSEMARY Goring counsels that Ms Sturgeon should bide her time and not seek at this stage to have a second independence referendum (“Sturgeon ought to recognise that patience is a great virtue”, The Herald, March 7). From the SNP’s perspective, that is sound advice, because it is unlikely to win it and thereby consign, in all likelihood, the idea of Scottish independence to the holding file for generations.

Ms Goring refers to its “general competence”. Now there is a phrase to conjure with. That is a somewhat generous and flattering assessment given the various, continuing and much publicised problems in, for example, education, the NHS, Police Scotland, the economy, and payments to farmers. When one considers that lack of competence and the ongoing disarray within the Labour Party, it is not difficult to understand the resurgence of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland, which is likely to be reflected in the council elections in May.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

CYNICISM is an easy game to play, and Hugh Andrew (Letters, March 7) does it impressively. It safeguards against disappointment, and saves the onerous task of making a detailed, critical analysis. When one takes the latter course, however, the things may appear very different. Fulminating against “a stagnant, reactionary and corrupt polity” may gratify Mr Andrew’s love of rhetoric, but takes no regard of existing reality.

Perhaps he just cannot see the forest because of all the trees, but let me try to open his eyes a little. At present in Scotland we have a clear and unambiguous choice. We can choose independence, confident that all parties advocating this, also reject Trident, the world’s most powerful for the mass killing of human beings. An independent Scotland with a written constitution prohibiting nuclear weapons from its land and waters, will be a huge encouragement to the non-nuclear majority of world states.

On the other hand we can support the British nationalist or Unionist parties, which are united in their loyalty to this criminal and illegal weapon of mass destruction. This is the ultimate token of Britishness, our sacrosanct symbol of status and power,

This is a clear and unambiguous moral choice on a matter that dwarfs all others.

Brian M Quail,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.