AMIDST severe budget cuts north and south of the Border, our readers are once again putting Scotland’s place in the Union under the microscope.

Earlier this week, a correspondent bemoaned “gross political and economic mismanagement by unionist parties across the last half-century”.

Read that letter here 👈

That was followed by a supporter of the Union arguing that Scotland’s inability to fund a universal heating allowance is proof that we “depend on the rest of the UK to pay for the nice little extras of which Scots are so fond”.

Read that letter here 👈

Today, a reader addresses both contributions and argues that “muscular unionism” is holding Scotland back.

Eric Melvin of Edinburgh writes:

"I am writing in support of MS Duncan’s letter (September 2) concerning the flaws of the Union and to challenge the claim by Jill Stephenson (Letters, September 4) that 'it simply isn’t true' that Scotland would be better off outside the UK. She further states that Scottish Government claims about the budget cuts being imposed by Westminster are 'just the next standard SNP gripe'.

It is quite obvious that relations between Holyrood and Westminster have deteriorated since the 2014 referendum. The previous positive working relationship between the coalition governments of Labour and the LibDems with Westminster foundered on the result of the 2007 Holyrood election which saw the SNP take office. Since then, there is clear evidence that what is now styled as 'muscular unionism' is being applied by successive Westminster governments.

A good example is the UK Internal Market Act of 2020 crafted to restrict the legislative powers of the devolved administrations in economic matters. Another recent example is the Levelling Up funding with grants from Westminster bypassing Holyrood and the Scottish local authorities. Like so much else that has characterised Westminster over the recent years, this funding has been open to abuse. Is it any coincidence that the constituency of Alister Jack, the former Scottish Secretary received an award of £18 million but not one of the seven applications from Glasgow was successful? It is hard not to see this as a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the Scottish Government. It is abundantly clear that the main Scottish opposition parties are following the instructions emanating from their London head offices. Any hope that relations might improve with the new Labour Government were torpedoed by the critical remarks made by Rachel Reeves last week. It is abundantly clear that Westminster is fearful of an independent Scotland.

Rather than the relentless criticism of your unionist correspondents, they have to answer the question as to why Scotland with its rich natural resources, beautiful countryside, its record of innovation and enterprise, its culture and traditions, its well-educated workforce added to the global goodwill that we enjoy, cannot succeed as an independent country and thrive like our neighbours Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Irish Republic? Far from benefiting from the Union, Scotland is being held back and denied the chance to regain its place as a successful independent country and as an active member of the EU."