We have received a lot of letters regarding our cover and articles last week on the price of Scottish independence. We will be publishing some of them in a forthcomiing issue of The Economist, but for now here is a small selection of our readers' thoughts on the matter so far. (Note: you can find a larger and clearer image of the map here). SIR - Why has the prospect of an independence referendum for Scotland become a vast magnet for internet trolls to trade threats and engage in primitive mud slinging? Included among them now is The Economist. Your front cover depicting a map of “Skintland” pillories and profoundly insults every corner of Scotland.



Simple logic dictates the referendum process. The Scottish National Party has always made it clear that it supports the idea of independence for Scotland. Therefore, logically, that is what the nationalists would aim for when in power. They did not achieve this political power with guns, weapons, violent means or the spillage of blood, but at the ballot box.



Let's remember the facts: in 1997 there was a referendum asking the Scottish people if they wanted a Parliament. The vast majority at the polls said yes, so the Westminster government passed the Scotland Act, which brought the first Scottish Parliament into being. At elections in 2011 the SNP won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament and with this majority it intends to ask the people of Scotland what they think about independence. That is what they said they would do, and that is what we should therefore expect them to do. The people of Scotland can say yes, or they can say no.



In every democracy, a voting process is preceded by campaigns on all sides to influence the voter. In more mature democracies one might expect campaigns to inform, not to threaten, bribe, instil fear, bully or harm. We seem to have gone from silly scaremongering, such as William Hague's threat to stop promoting Scotch whisky in British embassies, to your predictions of poverty and deprivation. The problem is that this obscures the facts, figures and reasoned debate everyone longs for.



To the outside world the United Kingdom must be an entirely Disunited Kingdom, whose constituent parts despise and dislike one another. I don't believe this to be true, but there is a lot of journalism pushing the idea along without thought for the wider harm it does. Ultimately it is up to the people of Scotland, but most of us would like to have some reasonable discussion in advance. Lorraine Fannin, Edinburgh SIR - It must have been splendid fun dreaming up all those place names to make Scotland sound like an economic basket case. Fun maybe, but puerile rather than funny, and not worthy of The Economist. And not even right: your own article shows Scotland doing better economically than any part of Britain other than London and the south-east.



I am English and I have no axe to grind about independence, but I was embarrassed by your insouciant dismissal of Scotland's potential. It can only encourage more Scots to vote “yes” when the time comes. Where was your English sense of fair play?

Clive Bates, London

SIR - Loved your front cover on Scotland. Absolutely hilarious. What better proof could we have that the sooner we split from you supercilious elitists down south the better.

Trish Hurst, Carradale, Argyll

SIR – I am an American who has been living in Edinburgh for the past five years. Where was the mention of Scotland's remarkable progress in producing renewable energy, and its projected energy self-sufficiency by 2020? Why is it relevant that Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS needed to be bailed out when the bulk of their operations are international? I see no one criticising the small nation of Switzerland over the lacklustre performance of UBS.



Why were there no words on what the union stands to lose if Scottish independence becomes a reality? Granted, there were some valid points made in your article, but as an outsider to this nationalist versus unionist row, even I could detect your clear bias.

Judith Payen, Edinburgh

SIR - That was some hatchet job you carried out on Scotland. The wholly negative spin you applied to the costs of independence, both on your cover and throughout the leader, had me wondering if it had been scripted by Tory central office.



Economies everywhere face an uncertain future, not just countries undergoing constitutional change. Yes, there are parts of Scotland's economy that could be adversely affected by independence, but this is offset by other areas where the impact would likely be advantageous, and you make no mention of these. For instance, the scrapping of Trident would allow an independent Scotland to have much-reduced defence spending, while Scotland would be entitled to a per capita share of UK assets.



The opposite of independence is dependence, and the latter also comes with costs. Arguably, Scotland has been paying a high price for its current status.

David Williamson, Dunbar, East Lothian

SIR - Your cover was mean-spirited and did not reflect the excellent content of your article. The cover has been widely seen and will win new converts to the SNP, who like to claim England's relationship with Scotland is abusive. Alex Salmond, the SNP's leader, is a political bruiser and the other current Scottish party leaders are lightweights.

A real problem with the independence debate is the absence of any effective leadership for the pro-union cause.The pro-union cause must be led by a Scot, who cannot be Tory (since they are a minority party in Scotland). My favourite would be Alastair Darling, the former Labour treasury secretary, but he seems to be keeping his head down.

Jim Thomson, Strathaven, Lanarkshire

SIR - Congratulations on the Scotland cover; clever, witty - and spot on. The Nats are livid!

William Ballantine, West Lothian, Scotland

SIR – Your articles on the Scottish dilemma were full of facts and fiction, rounded out by a good laugh. In my opinion, Scotland would have much to lose by choosing independence. Similarly, the union could suffer a fatal wound on losing a priceless gem.

One can only hope that we Scots will not lose our sense of humour.

George Smith, Weiterstadt, Germany