ALTHOUGH I am a veteran SNP member with over 45 years under my belt I regrettably found myself agreeing with many of the points raised by Nigel Smith in his Agenda article criticising the party's case for an immediate second independence referendum ("Yes vote needs a majority of more than 50 per cent for a consensus", The Herald, October 19).

The basic point made by Mr Smith – who was formally the principal cross-party co-ordinator of the victorious 1997 referendum on devolution – is that it really is far too soon to attempt another independence referendum a mere four or five years after the first "once in a generation" independence referendum and at a time when the lessons from that long campaign have not been adequately absorbed by either side.

In this respect I would respectfully remind more recent recruits to the independence cause that the point of holding a second independence referendum is not merely to go down to another glorious defeat but to win and to win decisively so that the result cannot credibly be questioned.

The latest polling evidence on the key constitutional question does not give much positive encouragement in that regard, though this fact may to some extent have been obscured by the SNP's unprecedented electoral success in both Westminster and Holyrood elections.

One last point. Mr Smith expresses his "puzzlement" at the contrast between the Prime Minister's hostility to the idea of holding another independence referendum within her own term of office and Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson's apparent support for it. I would remind him of the old Classical proverb "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" – "I fear the Greeks bearing gifts". In our Scottish context there can be no doubt that Ruth Davidson is the undisputed leader of the pro-Union "Greeks" who realises full well that another – and only too probable – defeat in an independence referendum within such a short time-scale would put the constitutional issue to bed for another generation.

Ian O Bayne,

8 Clarence Drive, Glasgow.

SCOTTISH Conservative leader Ruth Davidson declares that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is not entitled to speak for Scotland. But, as she obtained 47 per cent support in the 2016 Holyrood election, with Ruth Davidson on 24 per cent, which reflects a nine per cent swing from Labour to Conservative, she is twice as entitled to represent Scotland as Ms Davidson.

With the latter scheduled to make a celebrity appearance on the Great British Bake Off sequel, An Extra Slice (BBC 2, October 21) will she abide by the protocol for opposition spokespersons visiting another country, and desist from criticising the Scottish Government, and, by association, the people who voted for it?

Or is the appearance more to do with enhancing her credentials with the mainly English audience who applauded her so enthusiastically at the recent UK Conservative party conference?

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

NICOLA Sturgeon claims that she has a “clear mandate” to call another independence referendum. This is demonstrably not correct. The Scottish National Party was elected with 46.5 per cent of the vote at the 2016 Holyrood Elections, and was two seats short of a majority. So in steps the Green Party, which is offering its six seats as the extra votes needed. These self-same Greens were elected by only 0.6 per cent of the voters, and received more seats only due to the vagaries of the current Scottish electoral system.

Combining SNP and Green votes gives a total of only 47.1 per cent of the Scottish population, call into question the validity of Ms Sturgeon's claims. She is a great fan of percentages when she goes on about the 62 per cent of Scots who voted to Remain. These votes were just for that, not for the SNP interpretation that it means another independence referendum. In fact, she is always going on about how Scots never get the government they voted for. Perhaps she ought to look closer to home, as 53.5 per cent of Scots did not vote SNP.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

WITH a ready supply of home-grown "poison dwarves", kilted "ladies from hell" and banjo experts I have no qualms about an independent Scotland's capacity for defence (“Defence policy may influence Yes vote says expert”, The Herald, October 20).

The 1st Duke of Wellington's quote comes to mind: "I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

RICHARD Mowbray (Letters, October 18) claims that wages being the same across the so-called UK internal market are a benefit. It might surprise him to know that as an architect I could earn approximately 30 per cent more in London than in Glasgow – and it’s been like that for as long as I can remember.

Claiming that the EU is a protectionist bloc also misunderstands the internal market. The 42.2 per cent tariff for dairy products is there for a reason. Milk production in the world is currently at an all-time high with US farmers announcing this week that 43 million gallons of surplus milk are destined for the drains. In New Zealand (the world’s biggest milk producer) the currency has dropped 15 per cent in value as a consequence of the over-supply situation.

If the UK had a free trade agreement with both these countries then UK dairy farmers would simply go out of business as cheap milk flooded into the supermarkets. Remember the scenes in supermarkets last year when Russian sanctions diverted cheap milk from the Baltic States into the UK ?

BBC’s Countryfile programme also revealed recently that even with tariffs New Zealand lamb is cheaper in Tesco than Welsh lamb. You can imagine the future of the UK lamb industry if tariffs were subsequently removed to meet this free trade obsession.

He also states that UK car production is 9.1 per cent higher than a year ago. Exactly so. That’s a direct consequence of being in the internal market. If you want to be outside the market as a car manufacturer then look at what happened last week in Australia, where the last car manufacturing plant closed down. This is despite Australian workers being more efficient than their US counterparts. Unfortunately the Germans are twice as efficient whilst the Koreans and Japanese are four times more efficient.

Mr Mowbray further claims that the EU “10 per cent tariff wall” will be accommodated by the fall in sterling, whilst simultaneously stating that sterling will recover as a “re-balancing” takes place. By definition these two propositions are mutually exclusive.

Before asking the Scottish Government why we would benefit from staying in the EU, he needs to explain how we would cope with the very real pitfalls of being out of it.

Robert Menzie,

2 Burnbrae Garden, Falkirk.

RICHARD Mowbray’s brilliant letter should be nailed to the wall of every sitting room in the UK, Scotland, especially, as a permanent reminder of just how strong Brexit is.

Why should we pay anything for access to the EU when we are out? They can use our markets and don’t want tariffs in return. Most of the EU countries sell a lot to us: Mercedes, Audis, Volkswagens, Seats, Renaults, Citroens, Fiats and Dacias, to name a few. We should have the courage to negotiate from strength, meanwhile adding to our customers by scouring the world. Let the EU countries come to us and negotiate. They are bound to do so but if they do not we will manage far better because our UK economy is in our own hands and we decide who we will admit to join us.

The SNP is wasting its time with another referendum. The Scots are not that stupid. They cannot plug the financial black hole independence would produce and the EU will not have Scotland on its own. It would be like taking on another Greece. EU membership for an independent Scotland is a pipedream already defined by numerous EEC executives and prime ministers. Why continue to flaunt it?

The recent actions of the SNP remind me of the Darien Scheme: a bright flash in the pan followed by centuries of darkness.

William Scott,

23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.

YOUR article on the reduction in the number of MP’s elected from Scotland from 59 to 53 was informative and worrying for some MPs and highlighted that the SNP, with most elected representatives have most to lose (“Boundary plans are ‘unfair and undemocratic”, says MP”, The Herald, October 20). But how many peers are there in the House of Lords and should their numbers be subject to the same overhaul and reductions ?

The aim of the boundary changes reducing the number of MP, is to reduve the pressure on the public purse and the proposed reduction in the UK numbers from 650 to 600 has a projected saving over a five-year period, of around £65 million.

There are more than 800 members of the House of Lords, with more than 750 elgible to vote in the Lords and able to claim between £150 and £300 per day if they are not in receipt of a salary or allowance from another source – tax-free. The House of Lords is the second largest parliamentary assembly in the world after China’s National People’s Congress and is costing the public purse breath-taking amounts annually.

At a time when our democratically elected representatives are being reduced in the interest of the public purse, surely the time is right for a complete overhaul of the non-elected and undemocratic House of Lords. Their future worth to the country should definitely be on the agenda.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive, Banknock, Falkirk.