SINCE his sudden death, commentators in The Herald, and elsewhere, have made much of the fact that Alex Salmond took Scotland to the brink of independence. Well, when they got to the brink, Scots stepped back, rejecting his once in a generation offer, by a significant margin of 10%.

Of course, Mr Salmond was a shrewd operator; he managed David Cameron prior to the referendum, to ensure that the Yes campaign chose the date and the question to be asked. With all that in the bag and a hustings lasting two years, one of the longest in UK political history, he still failed to convince the silent majority to vote for the proposals outlined in his White Paper.

He was the type of person I’d cross the road to avoid, but very many were taken in by him. His legacy, as Mark Smith ("Let’s be honest: what made Alex Salmond also destroyed him", The Herald, October 14) pointed out, is leaving a country still, a decade after losing a vote on the issue, divided over the question of secession. And, if Kevin McKenna (“Alex Salmond was betrayed - and his enemies in the SNP should fear what will happen now”, The Herald, October 15) thinks the likes of Kenny Macaskill, Chris McEleny and Ash Regan will carry the torch for the cause, he’s sadly mistaken. If Alex Salmond failed to get the argument over the line, those three have absolutely no chance.

Stuart Brennan, Glasgow.

• ALEXANDER McKay (Letters, October 16) says the claim that Scotland was on the verge of independence “is simply not true”. I am happy to offer the counter view that it was a very close-run thing which gave the Establishment a very big fright.

The rules of the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 were based on a majority of one vote; far from ideal but that is how it was. The result was 55% to remain in the UK and 45% against Scottish independence. At first glance these percentages look very convincing but an examination of the actual figures gives a somewhat different picture.

The total number of votes cast was 3,619,915. The No votes totalled 2,001,926 and the Yes votes totalled 1,617,989. These figures also look quite impressive for remaining in the UK. Based on votes cast, 1,809,958 votes were required to win the referendum by one vote. Total votes by which No exceeded 50% totalled 191,968. Total votes by which Yes fell short totalled 191,969, being the number of extra people requiring persuasion on the merits of independence. Not a huge number given Yes started the beginning of the campaign around 35% and one poll had Yes at 50%. It was indeed a very close-run thing.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.

Read more letters

The party is over

WHEN Alex Salmond died, so did Alba: or, rather, the idea of Alba, because it never existed as an actual political force.

Alba's importance as a party has, from the start, been inversely proportionate to its grandiosity. At this year's General Election, every one of its candidates lost their deposit. Comically, its candidate for Glasgow North, Nick Durie, known for his anti-trans views, was beaten by the Scottish Green Party candidate, Iris Duane, a young trans woman who came third, behind Labour and the SNP. Mr Durie took last place, behind Reform UK, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats.

Since then, I have been baffled by the attention still paid to Alba by the national newspapers, who cover it as if it were a relevant political party, while rightly ignoring other marginal parties. The only explanation that makes sense is that, unlike, for example, the Scottish Family Party, Alba was founded by a celebrity, a former First Minister.

With the celebrity gone, what is now newsworthy about Alba? Who will replace Alex Salmond? The vacuous Ash Regan, who, in her suggestion that Scotland have an "independence thermometer", seems to view the country as a kindergarten?

Alba is like the protagonist of the film The Sixth Sense, who is dead, a ghost, but believes he is alive. We are now at the end of the movie. It is time for the funeral, and for life to go on.

Greum Maol Stevenson, Glasgow.

Indy is not separation

IF the Union is working for Scotland and most of the people on these islands, and warrants sustaining, why do some regular contributors to these pages feel the need to persistently slur those who support Scotland’s right to self-determination as well as the need to indulge in misrepresentation of facts without appropriate context and to divert from stark failings across the United Kingdom?

Alexander McKay and Martin Redfern (Letters, October 16) repeatedly adopt the pejorative term “separatist” in their letters for those who wish Scotland to withdraw from a blatantly unequal Union. Besides the inseparable geographical connection with our closest neighbour, Scotland’s long history is intertwined with that of England, Ireland and Wales and strong family connections will not be broken when the people of Scotland are again represented by one parliament accountable only to the Scottish people. To claim that in the 2014 referendum the media favoured those arguing for self-determination by using the words “generally fawning media” is not only a ridiculous assertion, it is counter to any objective analysis. I would respectfully remind Mr McKay that at the time of the referendum only a single nationally-distributed newspaper on a single day of the week supported self-determination and anyone who honestly thinks that the BBC, ITV and Sky were not supportive of the Union has seemingly lost touch with reality.

Mr Redfern’s simplistic claim that “25% of the UK’s overall tax yield is generated in London” is misleadingly akin to saying that Scotland’s whisky production actually comes from London because a number of whisky companies have their offices close to the parliament that determines alcohol taxation which currently happens to be in London. Of course such claims and misleading inferences of a Scotland that is dependent on the benevolence of the citizens of London are more diversions from the parlous state of the UK economy and the dire state of public services, including services provided by local councils, throughout the United Kingdom.

Perhaps Mr McKay and Mr Redfern would have more convincing arguments if they could include in their letters appropriate context relative to Scotland’s social and economic condition (past and present) within the increasingly undemocratic Union to which they are apparently forever devoted?

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

NI rise would hit workers

THE Labour Party swept to victory on a pledge to growth the economy, noting in its manifesto that “sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people.”

A few short months later, and despite continuing to trumpet “pro-business” credentials, Sir Keir Starmer seems certain to hike National Insurance on employers in the Budget, hobbling already faltering economic growth.

Additional burdens on business such as this slay the golden goose of economic growth, with firms stalling taking on new workers due to the increased costs of doing this and having less money to invest in their staff.

Labour has clearly reneged on its manifesto promise not to raise taxes, including National Insurance, on “working people”. Firms are run by “working people”, with nearly all UK companies being small and many family-owned, the anchors in our local economies. This proposed tax hike makes every job in our local communities more expensive to maintain.

With faltering poll ratings, the very brief Labour post-election honeymoon with its promise of “change” is well and truly over.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves seems likely to hike National Insurance for employersChancellor Rachel Reeves seems likely to hike National Insurance for employers (Image: PA)

• THERE is speculation that National Insurance contributions might increase. Rather than increase the contribution rate a more effective solution would be to combine National Insurance with income tax and set the rate for the combined tax by adding the present rates together.

The combined tax will result in a significant increase in tax collected. Individuals who have more than one job presently pay less National Insurance than someone with one job paid in total the same amount. In addition a combined tax would also recover tax from unearned income which falls outside the scope of National Insurance.

Sandy Gemmill, Edinburgh.

The cruellest cut of all

I HAVE been reading and listening to a number of discussions around the issue of assisted dying, with some advocating the need for a more in-depth analysis and study of its effects. Strangely, I thought the Government had already started such a study with the cancellation of pensioners' winter fuel payments.

Paul Lewis, Edinburgh.