IT feels to me that Scotland and England have come to a fork in the road. We have diverged enough, politically, socially and economically, that a parting of the ways now seems natural. Of course there is still a great deal of common ground and shared attitudes (like Ireland) but that is to be expected after all these years of history together. However, the sense that “we are in this together” is gone. Not least because Prime Minister Theresa May couldn’t even live up to her own words, and trust the other administrations in the UK to reach a position on Brexit which all could go along with.

England is very content with populist Tory government, Scotland with the SNP and “red, white and blue” wishful thinking will not alter that. The UK (Westminster) is now more of a one-party state than Scotland could ever be.

I thought at one time, that we could all live under one roof, with a private room of our own, but it seems that our big southern neighbour is intent on setting out all the house rules, whether they are in accord with the wishes of others or not. That is not fair or democratic, and federalism or strengthened devolution is off the table.

The Unionist position is we should not have a referendum because polling suggests many don’t want a referendum at this time, but polling has been very clear over two decades, that Scots want Holyrood to have control of everything except defence and foreign affairs. The Unionists have totally ignored these polls (which is why we are where we are now).

I hope we part amicably, Scotland should join the European Economic Area, and England should become the “new Singapore” or whatever its wishes are, and all live in peace as neighbours should.

G R Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

I HAVE been struck by a number of commentators, many of whom should know better, who state that an independent Scotland would have to join an apparent “queue” for EU membership.

This is peculiar, as there is of course no queue. Legislation in Scotland is already in alignment with existing EU rules, the so-called acquis communautaire. This is a situation that is very different when compared with the likes of EU candidate countries such as Montenegro, Serbia and Albania.

To illustrate this, Turkey applied to join the then EEC in 1987. Austria applied to join in 1989, Finland in 1992 and Sweden in 1991. Those nations then joined what became the EU in 1995. Turkey is still waiting in the wings.

We are clearly in the “fast track” lane to EU entry, in a different position when compared with other candidate countries, not standing in some non-existent queue.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace, Edinburgh.

WITH reference to your report of the Nato secretary-general’s statement that Scotland voting to leave the UK would mean Scotland leaving the defence bloc (“Scotland not automatically Nato member”, The Herald, March 14) I believe Jens Stoltenberg, who was speaking to Sky News, can be excused for his lack of knowledge of British history, but not so British politicians, journalists, and all those who seek to influence the course of our history.

There are two kingdoms forming the United Kingdom, Scotland and England. The principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland are associate members, and should Scotland become independent, the United Kingdom will be dissolved. The Scottish King James VI became James I of both kingdoms in 1603, and in 1707 the two parliaments merged and subsequently operated from Westminster. This is not the English Parliament, but the British Parliament.

Does this beg the question that if the UK no longer exists, England will also require to apply for Nato membership? Of course additionally this may include the United Nations, G20, The World Trade Organisation, The Commonwealth, and other similar treaty agreements.

Nato considers nuclear weapons a key component of its defence capability. I would suggest that regardless of any future Scottish government’s view on this, the fact that we presently garage a large part of those armaments must be of substantial benefit in any future negotiation of Scotland’s position within Nato, or with our neighbours south of the Border.

Ian Arnold,

Westwinds, Baycroft, Strachur, Argyll.

“THAT although we desire that true peace and friendship be perpetually Cultivated with our neighbours in England…,yet we judge your going into this treaty as it now lies before you will bring an insupportable burden of taxations upon this land, which all the grants of freedom of trade will never counterbalance being so uncertain and precarious while still under the regulations of the English in the Parliament of Britain, who may if they please discourage the most considerable branches of our trade…” To His Grace Her Majesties Commissioner and the Estates of Parliament. From The Baillies Town Council and other inhabitants of Stirling. 18th November 1706. (Found in Scotland: The Autobiography, edited by The Herald’s Rosemary Goring.)

The current stushie is hardly new. Constitutional discontents arise from the objective fact that the UK derives its political demographics with 9/11ths of the total UK population from England, 1/11th from Wales and the North of Ireland and 1/11th from Scotland. This creates a democratic deficit that only a constitutional settlement can resolve. A fresh referendum might justbring an end to this “auld sang”.

Thom Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

AS the referendum proceeds the various obstacles to independence are going to be listed by the No campaign, yet other countries have managed to escape from Westminster.

The Republic of Ireland managed it nearly 100 years ago during a time of economic difficulty caused by the needless First World War (itself started by a very poor example of trying to hold empires together). The Norwegians had managed to leave Sweden’s control a few years earlier and the countries now enjoy good relations.

The various nations of the Empire managed to set up their own central banks, currencies, foreign offices and defence systems. The United Steas, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand were all once governed by Westminster.

With regard to size, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland and Norway are all European countries of similar size managing to be quite successful. Scotland would be around 43rd in world terms out of around 200 nations. Scotland is a developed nation with a number of advantages over other countries.

In the EU referendum it was clear that Scotland wanted to continue to participate in EU trading by proportionally a much larger majority than the Leave majority in England and Wales. There is an irony in that Westminster wants to leave the EU so it can “take back control” yet does not want to give Scotland the same opportunity.

Bruce Skivington,

8 Pairc a Ghliob, Strath, Gairloch, Wester Ross.

IT strikes me that Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale and Theresa May are about to miss an ideal opportunity to send the SNP home to think again.

As is now the norm, the above party leaders spout that same-old and now familiar choreographed rhetoric that the people of Scotland neither need nor want another independence referendum.

If they have courage and faith in their argument that the people do not want such a referendum and that independence would be rejected, now is surely the ideal opportunity for the SNP to be consigned to the political wilderness not just for one generation but probably for ever more.

Would the smart move not be to tell the SNP to bring its referendum on, thus ensuring its political demise?

These party leaders do have faith in their argument - don’t they?

John S Milligan,

86 Irvine Road, Kilmarnock.

THE reason the Scottish National Party spent next to nothing promoting the Remain campaign in the Brexit referendum now becomes clear. Its leaders are not that interested in being part of Europe. They are fudging the issue of what elements of the European Union they would seek to rejoin.

It is now very apparent that they are using Brexit as a tool to stoke up support for independence without really wanting to fully rejoin Europe.

This shameless attempt to bully the Westminster Government into granting another referendum must be subject to much close scrutiny. They are playing a devious game of subterfuge with the electorate. Whatever happened to the SNP claims of a free and fair society?

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

THE First Minister of Scotland is constantly bleating about the “Hard Tory Brexit” being a massive threat to me and my generation, how we will be cast adrift and be buffeted by the winds of uncertainty.

However, I will have spent seven to eight years with the threat of a referendum on Scottish independence and all the economic, social and cultural uncertainty that this has caused. This equals just over one-fifth of my entire existence so far and all in what are supposed to be the most productive years of my life.

So tell me, what seems more damaging?

A decade of agitating, grievance and referendums by a secessionist movement that is deaf to the will of the majority of the Scottish population or Brexit? In Scotland, the answer is obvious.

David Bone,

1 Ailsa Street West, Girvan.

“ARE you for us, or against us?” This is the now-familiar question which has permeated our society since 2013. Such a question leaves no room for compromise, or for a common understanding. The logical result is a world of opposite polarities.

I respect the right of our political leaders to hold referendums on great constitutional questions. But the social divisiveness this ferments is the great unintended consequence. I hope and feel that most of our citizens, regardless of their background, have had enough of being set against each other. Clement Atlee once said that people will never agree, but nevertheless we have to live with each other. Such moderate, empathetic, healing voices are very badly needed in our political discourse today.

David McMillan,

Westbank Quadrant, Glasgow.