A shiver must have run down the spines of most Guardianista Scots on reading that Michael Forsyth "is leading the campaign to preserve the union" (Cameron bets future of UK on Scots vote, 9 January). Like most of my compatriots I believe Scotland, and the rest of the UK, would be diminished by the breakup of Britain. But, like most Scots, I have little common ground with Thatcher's erstwhile governor-general of the north, who as recently as 2009 was extolling the virtues of the poll tax.

Most Scots will never forget, still less forgive, the eagerness with which the uber-Thatcherite Forsyth offered up his homeland as a testing ground for the most vindictive Tory policies, in the absence of any political mandate. It's why he and his ilk find they have just one Scots Tory MP. Our support for Britain owes nothing to a past bedecked in union flags, the bemoaning of a lost empire or the echoes of "Hang Mandela". We view the Britain we cherish as a multicultural, tolerant and democratic place, and we celebrate shared achievements such as the NHS and the minimum wage, and look forward to our country's continuing tolerance and diversity. Little prospect of finding common ground there with Forsyth. Moreover, who bar Forsyth (perhaps Cameron?) has cast this man as our "saviour"? It reads like 1979 all over again. A successful Scotland in Britain campaign will need a Scot of progressive values at its fore: whatever became of Brown and Darling?
Brian Fitzpatrick
Glasgow

• Is David Cameron a closet Scottish nationalist? I can think of nothing which would be more likely to turn Scotland's growing minority for independence into a clear majority than the Con-Dem coalition at Westminster trying to force a two-question referendum in the next 18 months, rather than allow the Scottish parliament to set a likely three-question referendum for 2014. As things stand, it seems unarguable that most Scots (including, secretly, Alex Salmond) favour the putative "option 2" ("devolution max", in which Scotland would remain in the UK, but with greater powers, particularly over taxation, for the Scottish parliament). If Cameron abuses the constitutional arrangements around devolution to prevent that option being given, I am certain that I will be far from the only non-nationalist, non-SNP voter who votes against the Tory ultimatum, and for independence.
Mark Brown
Glasgow

• Yet another Tory PM seeks to grasp the thistle. I suggest that if Cameron really wants to get up the noses of unionist Scottish voters, he ought to consider stipulating as a date for the referendum 9 September 2013 – the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Flodden.
ID Clarke
Edinburgh

• Before we entrust our future to referendums, we should ask what happens if the Tory Europhobes and the Scottish nationalists both get their way. If Britain leaves the EU and Scotland gains independence, what arrangements are envisaged for the movement of people and goods across the border? Has anyone thought about this or are they all too busy parading their personal hobbyhorses to consider the bigger picture?
Roger Woodhouse
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

• I am (obviously) not a constitutional lawyer. It does seem to me, however, that a Scottish vote to secede from the UK needs careful study. I should be interested to know the (legal) distinction between a "Scottish citizen" and a "UK citizen". If, as a young man, born, brought up and educated in England, I had moved to Scotland for employment and stayed there, would I now (at 80) be a Scottish citizen? If the distinction of citizenship is not clear then surely a referendum about a section of the UK seceding must be a decision for all UK citizens and not just for those who live in a particular part of it.
John Pottinger
Linthorpe, Middlesbrough

• If the Scots vote to leave without knowing the terms on which they will leave, that would be like domestic desertion and they should take the consequences: loss of UK subsidies, defence, industrial policy, employment policy, representation and oil income, to name a few. (The benefit of "Scotland's oil" is in tax take from the companies exploiting it, not some geohistorical accident.) If the Scots want to negotiate a divorce, let the UK government inform them of the potential settlement, so that they can make an informed decision.
Andrew Martin
Swindon, Wiltshire

• Constitutionally, it is for the government, and not the devolved administration at Holyrood, to bring forward any proposals as they affect Scotland and the rest of the UK. This is the unquestionable constitutional position in terms of the 1998 act. Politically, it is the hand of death in Scotland for any proposal on constitutional reform to appear to be imposed from London, as this smacks of colonial imposition.

However, we must not lose grasp of reality. The 1998 act is the legal expression of the will of the democratically elected parliament of the day. Any proposed amendment can only be proposed by democratic means and discussed in full debate among elected members of the Commons.

Among the many disturbing features of the SNP approach to the question of a referendum (attempting to exclude the Electoral Commission, altering voting age) is a suggestion that the prime minister might use section 30 of the act, asking the Queen in council to vary its terms to allow Holyrood to hold a specific referendum on separation, subject to certain conditions.

This is wholly undemocratic. Let us not forget that the act was about devolution and not separation, and that the vast majority of the people of Scotland are opposed to separation.
John McAleer
Bishopbriggs, East Dunbartonshire