My quoted comment on the SNP's economic prospectus – "It's voodoo economics" – did not imply that Scottish independence is not a viable option (Can Scotland pay its way?, G2, 20 May). As I elaborate in my book, The Independence of Scotland, an independent Scottish state is perfectly feasible. In an independent, social-democratic Scotland, we would pay higher taxes than in England, we would get rather better universal services and, if we spent wisely, we could have a more productive economy. In order to reap the benefits, Scotland would need to learn how to adapt to global changes, to generate real social partnership and to spread its burdens equitably. It would have to link social inclusion policies to economic development, embrace active labour market policies and think seriously about industrial policy. None of this would happen automatically just because of independence. Indeed, were Scotland to have enhanced fiscal powers under devolution-max or independence-lite, and were to make these adaptations, then independence would become redundant.

The alternative scenario, being pressed by some neoliberal thinktanks in Scotland, is to go for a low-tax, regulated, neoliberal regime. This would entail dismantling the existing welfare settlement, abandoning universal provision and increasing social inequality. The voodoo economics is the effort to combine the social democratic and neoliberal models, or wishfully think that tax cuts pay for themselves. It is to be welcomed that we are at last moving away from obsessions with 19th-century notions of independence to serious thinking about the meaning of self-government in a globalised world and a transformed Europe. So it is not a question of whether we go for independence or not, but what we do with self-government that is critical. Let us hope that the coming debate will focus on this and not on illusions about independence itself yielding "levers" or on the supposed inability of Scotland to manage without the aid of its neighbour.

Michael Keating

Professor of politics, University of Aberdeen

• I was surprised by the image you chose on your front page to illustrate your G2 special on Scottish independence. Is an image of a young boy wearing a tartan bonnet and a "Jimmy" wig, with his face painted á la Braveheart, an appropriate one to use to introduce a discourse on such a crucially important topic? My feeling is that this particular image could be construed as offensive, insulting or perhaps just inane – or rather is it another example of the London-based media displaying its prejudicial and condescending attitude to Scotland? A prejudice which will utilise any hackneyed stereotype or trope in order to assert a very particular and possibly insidious subtext. Other examples within the issue being the accompanying images of the Wallace Monument and Scottish football supporters wrecking the goalposts at Wembley in 1977.

Martin Fowler

Carlisle

• I bought your paper on Friday, primarily to find out details of Alex Salmond's new cabinet. I was pleased to see the G2 supplement considering the ramifications of Scottish independence. However, there was no coverage at all of the new cabinet. This made me reflect on the nature of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK; in reality England, because Wales and Northern Ireland are equally marginalised. My favourite national newspaper chooses to run a whole section on independence because it has the potential to impact hugely on the majority of its readers in England. Yet it considers coverage of the Scottish cabinet to be insignificant because it has little interest for its majority audience. I would like to think that this interpretation is not true but sadly I think it seriously reflects the anglocentric nature of the UK, and is why a move towards a more federal UK, if not full independence, is inevitable.

Shirley Grieve

Edinburgh

• Nicholas Watt refers (Report, 21 May) to "Labour's disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary election" when seven seats were lost. But this was on a fall in its percentage of votes over the 2007 election of only 0.4 %, which in normal circumstances would have cost Labour one or two seats at most. The reason for the big win for the SNP stems wholly from the collapse of the Lib Dems, wiping out all but five of their seats to the benefit of the Nationalists.

While any outcome that puts Salmond and his chums into outright control of the parliament is deplored by many Scots, the word "disastrous" to describe Labour's performance is as unfair as it is inaccurate.

Bill Wilde

Eaglesham, Renfrewshire

• Why do you say climate change could deal a fatal blow to the beleaguered ski industry in Scotland (1707 v 2011, G2, 20 May)? It is articles like this that could deal the fatal blow. The ski industry is not beleaguered. My business is highly profitable, employing up to 15 technicians, instructors and sales staff. We are currently expanding to create more jobs and more ski-hire facilities. We have a newly developed cross-country ski facility which provided 67 skiable days in the forest last season and 120 the previous season. We have experienced a continual growth in skier numbers over the last five years, bucking the economic woes of the UK, which one day may be the Former UK.

William M Wilson

Glenmore Outdoor, Aviemore

• Why is Simon Hoggart worrying about minor matters such as the West Lothian question (Simon Hoggart's week, 21 May) when serious issues like what becomes of the Dukedom of Edinburgh remain unresolved?

Dr Peter Baker

London