Blair’s concessions to nationalists gave rise to today’s divided Britain

SIR – It is now becoming clear just how disastrously misconceived and destructive the UK devolution process has been, in particular Tony Blair’s policy to provide for a Scottish parliament for reasons which, in retrospect, look increasingly like electoral expediency.

Far from choking off the emerging electoral support for Scottish nationalism and shoring up the Labour vote, the decision to offer Scots a heady mix of far greater political autonomy, the continued ability to interfere in English politics through the West Lothian anomaly, and a preferential financial settlement, with no commensurate fiscal liabilities and responsibilities, has had the opposite effect. It has resulted in Scotland running up an annual £16 billion deficit which the rest of the UK has to bankroll, while the Barnett formula continues to confer a greater percapita public spend on Scots than on any other UK region.

Let us hope that any new referendum campaign will be clear about what the real implications of independence for Scotland would be. Nigel Henson Farningham, Kent SIR – Much is being made at present of the importance of honouring manifesto commitments. The Scottish Green Party manifesto for 2016 stated that it would support a second independence vote if it came about “by the will of the people”, and not driven by “calculations of party political advantage”.

Current polling suggests that a majority of voters do not want another independence vote, at least until after Brexit has been concluded. With the upcoming vote in Holyrood on whether to grant permission to Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister, to request the powers for a legal referendum, it will be interesting to see whether Green MSPs will live up to their manifesto promise or sacrifice that part of it for political advantage. Paul Lewis Edinburgh SIR – The economic arguments against Scottish independence are very convincing, but I would like to see greater emphasis placed on the effects a breakaway would have on family and personal relationships.

Like many people in England I am partly Scottish, and have relatives over the border. Would independence mean that a visit to Scotland would require me to take out foreign travel and health insurance? Would a phone call to Edinburgh be charged at international rates? Would someone who holidays only in the UK have to get a passport to visit a Scottish relative?

The two nations are very intertwined on a personal as well as an economic level. They have lived together incredibly successfully. What is the point of breaking them apart? Hugh Payne Hitchin, Hertfordshire SIR – Brexit means Brexit. United Kingdom means United Kingdom. Maurice Beales Potters Bar, Hertfordshire