THE UK Government’s opposition to a second Scottish independence referendum has hardened further. There will be no more talks about the timing of one in the immediate future, and most definitely not before the Brexit deal has been settled. In any case the result in the 2014 referendum was not in any way marginal.

So it is highly unlikely that, if another independence referendum is ever held, it will take place before a 2020 general election and, more probably, after a Holyrood election in 2021. It is quite likely that, by that time, the SNP will not have a majority at Holyrood, even with support from the Greens.

It would seem most unwise for Scotland to break away from its membership of the UK. Under the present regime Scotland’s budget deficit can only get worse. The deficit of £15 billion is equivalent to almost 10 per cent of GDP while 70 per cent of Scotland’s “export” trade is with the rest of the UK.

There are crucial questions left unanswered during the 2014 referendum and still are by the SNP Administration, including: what would Scotland’s currency be should the SNP break away from the UK? Neither the pound sterling nor facilities of the Bank of England would be available to an independent Scotland.

Warwick Lightfoot, a government special advisor who has worked for three Chancellors, has warned of the implausibility of Nicola Sturgeon’s idea that Scotland’s fiscal deficit can simply be resolved by increased receipts from a higher tax base. It would seem even less realistic in the SNP’s proposals for a broad social democratic agenda directed at expanding public services and social protection, education and training.

Ms Sturgeon has also been receiving fairly sound advice from key figures in the SNP such as Jim Sillars and Alex Neil who believe that independence and EU membership should be separated. Former RBS chief executive George Mathieson is quoted as saying that an independent Scotland should not join the EU and, in any case, is unlikely to get the unanimous approval from member states.

Why Ms Sturgeon believes that leaving the UK in favour of trying to get EU membership escapes me. It must just be because the whole raison d’etre of the SNP is to break up our 300-year old Union.

Robert I G Scott,

Northfield, Ceres, Fife.

THERESA “submarine”May surfaced in Scotland to confirm that the terms of Brexit would be known around the same time that Nicola Sturgeon wants to give the Scottish people the opportunity to choose their future in a referendum (“Sturgeon says PM running out of excuses on new vote”, The Herald, March 28).

Everyone agrees that “now is not the time” but late autumn 2018 through to spring 2019 most certainly will be the time, when we have the details of the Brexit deal, or perhaps no deal, and we will also have in detail the First Minister’s proposals to put Scotland’s future into Scotland’s hands. I find it unacceptable that Mrs May, elected as an MP by the voters of Maidenhead but elected nowhere else, should have the brass neck to come to Scotland and insist that we should all pull together after she ignored the result of the EU referendum in Scotland and refused to compromise on her hard Brexit position. It is to be hoped she will not display the same crass stubbornness in her negotiations with the EU as she has shown towards Scotland and Wales, with the Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones accusing her of having “a tin ear” when listening to the devolved governments; if she does take her arrogance to Europe she may find she will get more than she bargained for, and not in a good way. All the signs are that Mrs May thinks it has to be her way or no way. No way, Mrs May.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

IN striving for personal power, Nicola Sturgeon is breaking her promises that she would respect the declared choice of the Scottish people on Scotland’s place in Britain; that the result of the independence referendum would stand for at least a generation; and that the SNP would not attempt to adopt the Scottish flag as an SNP symbol.

She asked to be judged on her record on Scottish education. The standard of teaching in Scottish schools has fallen during her leadership (“Staff crisis damaging quality of education, say experts”, The Herald, March 28).

She boasted that the SNP would protect the NHS but Scottish health care is failing. Her Government has dismantled and dangerously weakened the Scottish Police forces.

She should be judged on her failures and her broken promises. As Scots proud of our nation, strongly in favour of Scotland remaining in the UK and willing to support good leadership to that end, regardless of party labels, we hope Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour and independent politicians will unite to ensure that Scots are provided with the information on our present state that shows the need to strengthen mutual bonds among the four nations of the UK.

A call for yet another referendum on independence is inappropriate. Our UK government should insist that this matter will not be discussed before the UK is well settled outside the EU, after which the balance of trade and other relationships with European countries can be assessed and Britain’s place in the world can be reviewed.

Drs Alison and Thomas S Kerr,

29 Fountain Road,

Bridge of Allan,

Stirling.

I AM not aware of any genealogical connections between Henry VIII and Theresa May but they share some very interesting similarities in their attempts to retain and extend their personal power (“Collision course is truly on the cards”, Iain Macwhirter, The Herald, March 28).

Henry VIII broke with the Church of Rome over purely selfish reasons; today Mrs May echoes this with her break with the inheritors of the Treaty of Rome, the EU, for reasons that are purely party political .

Henry ushered in The Divine Right of Kings and used the Royal Prerogative to bolster his power and neuter dissent while Mrs May, having failed in her use of the Royal Prerogative, is hoping that the Great Repeal Act will offer similar advantages to her and her coterie of Brexiters as they try to circumvent Parliamentary scrutiny for the redistribution of powers from Brussels.

Like Henry who found the Scots an irritant that couldn’t be ignored as he was preparing for war on the continent, so too Mrs May has a problem with the Scots just as she is about to embark on a “battle” with Europe. Henry initiated war with the Scots, the “Rough Wooing”, which lasted eight years; unfortunately for Mrs May a similar strategy is unavailable to her to silence these “rebellious Scots”, although she is attempting to put the Scottish problem on a backburner for a similar period.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square ,

Johnstone.

MAY I suggest a supplementary question on the independence referendum? Best legs: Theresa or Nicola?

Michael Watson,

74 Wardlaw Avenue,

Rutherglen,

Glasgow.

THE article by Pinstripe on the high price we would all pay for independence has convinced me to be a regular buyer of The Herald (“Public would pay a high price for independence”, March 27). It’s all there: latent anti-English sentiment, the culture of grievance and the folly of cutting ourselves off from UK financial transfers in favour of higher taxes, lower public spending and an almighty borrowing deficit. There is surely enough uncertainty without the added issue of which currency an independent Scotland would use, or the central bank guaranteeing it.

I wish Nicola Sturgeon would stop saying two things. First, she has a tendency to speak for “the people of Scotland”. Count me out. Secondly, there is her absurd claim that Scotland is being dragged kicking and screaming against its will out of the EU. The 1.6 million Scottish voters who opted to remain in the EU do not want to see that vote as opting out of the UK. The two million voters who opted to remain in the UK in the 2014 referendum make that clear.

Then there are the one million Scots who voted for Brexit and found themselves in accord with the UK-wide majority.

Donald Thomson,

28 Salisbury Terrace,

Aberdeen.

“I AM, for the first time in my life, rather ashamed to be Scottish”. Thus begins the epistle by Pinstripe, who claims he is “telling it straight”. Thereafter we are subjected to a melange of propaganda, project fear, and unsubstantiated allegations (ask Sweden how it manages without the euro).

What really annoys me is that this individual is allowed two write in The Herald under a pseudonym, with no identification other than the statement that he is a senior member of Scotland’s financial services community. If he is so sure he is “telling it straight” then add his name to his contributions.

D MacRae,

38 Marchfield Avenue,

Paisley.

IAIN AD Mann writes: “The voting system for the limited 1979 referendum was gerrymandered by the Conservative government” (Letters, March 27). The gerrymandering was done by the Labour Party. George Cunningham, a Scot, and the Labour MP for Islington, proposed an amendment that 40 per cent of the electorate must vote Yes for the result to pass.

This clause, never used in any referendum in the world before or since, meant that even voters on the roll who had died were classed as No. The Yes campaign was a lacklustre one from Labour, whose bill it was. Prime Minister Callaghan refused to use a three line whip to support the bill.

The 11 SNP MPs put down a motion of no confidence, which was hurriedly adopted by the Tories. The vote of no confidence was only passed by one vote. The subsequent General Election was won by the Tories, and the SNP’s 11 seats were reduced to two.

The SNP MPs were acting under instructions from the party’s national council since the whole sorry tale showed a lack of commitment by the Labour Party.

Margaret Thatcher inherited the Labour Bill, which she promptly put in the bin.

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.