Tom Tracey (Letters, 19 April) makes a case for Scottish independence, despite the current disasters with the Scottish National party, but I believe his arguments are flawed. He claims that Scotland is economically disadvantaged but, measured GDP per head, Scotland performs better than any of the English regions outside the south‑east.
Also, there is no economic case for Scottish independence. Every effort to produce one runs against the facts, which show clearly that Scotland benefits from pooling and sharing within the UK to the tune of around £15bn annually and would be much poorer after separation.
There is no cultural case. The lives of city dwellers in Aberdeen or Glasgow are little different from people in Birmingham or Bristol. Rural life in England is much the same as rural life in Scotland.
There is no historical case. Regardless of the wilder claims of social media cybernats, Scotland is not a colony. In fact, Scots have benefited greatly, and continue to do so, from being part of team GB.
There is no legal case. The UK is a unitary state formed with the agreement of all parties in the Act of Union and its legal status has never been challenged.
There is no geographical or geopolitical case. We are around 65 million people crammed on to a small island. The very idea of splitting it up into different countries in a world where size and influence matters could serve as a definition of idiocy. You can hear Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping cheer at the very prospect.
And importantly, there is no democratic case. We had our referendum. The outcome was decisive and should put the question to bed for at least a generation.
Alex Gallagher
Largs, North Ayrshire
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
