WHERE is the voice of the Scottish people that First Minister Alex Salmond claims he wants to guide him about the referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom?

If we Scots sleepwalk now, Mr Salmond will listen only to voices he wants to hear – those of just a few organisations he claims represent "civic Scotland" ("Salmond turns up pressure on PM over greater powers", The Herald, February 18)

As a proud Scot and Brit, I'm not satisfied to be represented merely by those such as Reform Scotland, the National Union of Students, various charities and churches, the STUC and the Scottish Youth Parliament.

There has been little effort by the Scottish Government to publicise the fact that individual Scots can respond to its nine consultation questions. Readers might wish to respond to these online at: http://consult.scotland.gov.uk/scotreferendum or by email to referendum@scotland.gsi.gov.uk before May 11.

Change is needed to the wording and timing of Mr Salmond's proposed referendum question: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? A more transparent question would be: Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and become a separate country?

Given that Mr Salmond stated in November 2009 that he fully intended to (and could) hold an independence referendum in November 2010 (just one year on), it's clearly unnecessary for a near three-year delay. We should target a reasonable date of, say, May 1, 2013.

Where are senior Scottish statesmen who, faced with this urgent superordinate goal of preserving the most successful Union ever, are prepared to follow the lead of our Prime Minister, to bury petty political differences, and to lead a civilised, fact-based Scots-in-Britain campaign?

Graeme Crawford,

Whitehouse Loan,

Edinburgh.

Much has been made of David Cameron's ill-defined offer of further powers for Scotland should we vote against independence. Not only does this smack of Alec Douglas-Home's offer for better devolution in 1979, it also means that without any hint of what these powers are, we are really being offered nothing at all.

If Mr Cameron is serious about his offer then he must tell us what these powers will be and cement a commitment to them in law before the referendum. The means to do so is simple.

The Scotland Bill currently limping through Parliament is largely discredited and will need to be amended anyway. It is a simple matter for the bill to include a series of new powers that Scotland will receive if we opt to stay in the Union along with a clause, should it be deemed necessary, suspending the implementation of them until after the referendum. If Scotland votes to remain in the Union we therefore gain these new powers automatically and there is no danger of the offer being withdrawn once independence is safely out of the way.

Such a course of action would lend substance to Mr Cameron's offer and leave no doubt that he is sincere. As it stands, however, there is no evidence to that effect and his offer is meaningless.

Iain Paterson,

6 Methven Avenue,

Bearsden.

TREVOR Rigg is quite correct to point out that there has to be thought put into some fundamental questions in regard to Scottish independence (Letters, February 18). But what do we mean by independence? When the Europhiles in Brussels see the Greek tragedy of the Eurozone as an ideal chance to press for greater fiscal control of member countries' budgets, is it possible to talk of an independent Scotland and still look for continuing membership of the EU? Does that make any sense?

Other basic questions include how much of the massive UK national debt an independent Scotland would be expected to shoulder. If we have control of North Sea oil and gas, we could manage – but will the rest of the UK be willing to see that prize asset handed over?

G C Bryson,

2 Hawksland Road, Lanark.

IAIN A D Mann questions the level of influence of Scottish MPs at Westminster (Letters, February 18). Has he never heard of Gordon Brown, Alec Douglas-Home, John Smith, Robin Cook, Alistair Darling, Malcolm Rifkind, Ian Lang, Donald Dewar, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy or Danny Alexander?

The list of Cabinet/ Shadow Cabinet members and party leaders from Scotland is extensive.

David S W Williamson,

49 Pinnaclehill Park, Kelso.

IT seems, on the surface, a reasonable request for the First Minister to ask for details on what further powers could be transferred to Scotland ("Salmond demands details on extra Holyrood powers", The Herald, February 17). Why buy a prospectus if you don't know what it entails?

Mr Salmond's new-found emphasis on detail is to be welcomed. I have been debating with Nationalists for at least two decades, trying to get details of their proposals on independence, with no success. Unfortunately, in the debate about independence, emotion is always in full spate but actual facts and details are scarce.

Perhaps before loudly demanding details of a proposal that was made only the previous day, Mr Salmond could provide details of what an independent Scotland would look like.

Independence has been SNP policy for 80 long years and Mr Salmond has been selling the prospectus for all of his adult life. If these details really exist, then surely somebody must have a clue what they are and what they mean for Scotland and the UK.

Isn't it time Alex Salmond let the Scottish people into the secret?

Alex Gallagher,

12 Phillips Avenue,

Largs.

THE idea of an independent Scotland having to use the Bank of England as lender of last resort must surely never happen. Even at this stage such a suggestion is rightly being used to ridicule the SNP plans.

I am not a financial expert but why can't the SNP negotiate with the Bank of Sweden, for example, to act as such a lender? The Swedish Bank has separate agreements with the central banks in the Nordic and Baltic countries regarding "co-operation in the event of problems in a cross-border bank".

The Bank of Sweden's website states that these central banks "also co-operate by lending money to one another and thus contribute to mutual macro-economic and financial stability".

For example, recently The Bank of Sweden "offered short-term funding through swap agreements to central banks in neighbouring countries to make it easier for them to take measures to stabilise their own financial systems".

Scotland could set up its own new central bank where we would lodge our oil fund revenues and the like and hopefully get the Bank of Sweden or the Bank of Norway to act as our (very wealthy) lender of last resort.

Norway has so many historical ties and similarities with us. Norway was ruled by the Kings of Denmark from the 12th century until 1814 then taken over by Sweden and only gained full independence in May 1905.

I should add that the Bank of Norway has no less than $600 billion in its oil fund.

Gordon Airs,

34 Glen Brae,

Bridge of Weir.