IT is gratifying to see a letter generate debate, in this case mine on the subject of how Holyrood can work better through co-operation and agreement than through continuation of the increasingly sterile independence debate(February 13). But there is danger, as in much of public policy debate, of over-thinking the issues.

For example, Alastair Galloway (Letters, February 14) expends a vast amount of energy and ink pondering how to reconcile the wishes of those who want independence with a consensual agenda. The answer is easy: if we were starting from another place, we might hold a Once in a Generation poll to ask the people of Scotland if they agreed that Scotland should be an independent nation, and build consensus on the result. The fact that we have already held that very referendum should make things simpler rather than more complicated.

Likewise in the business of co-operation. In an earlier life I attended meetings between policy makers from Glasgow and Edinburgh to try to improve collaboration between the two cities. At one such meeting, some academics produced a diagram of existing links which was a deeply complex cats-cradle of a thing which put everybody off trying. I have concluded since that the better idea would have been to concentrate on one sector (perhaps engineering) and develop synergies and joint working for mutual benefit.

In the same way, the parties at Holyrood could concentrate on one issue per parliament. One subject to take out of the political maelstrom might be the Scottish NHS: this was proposed by Labour's Johann Lamont but rebutted by Nicola Sturgeon in the sort of unnecessarily partisan gesture that is her hallmark, but remains a sound suggestion. If not that, why not local government finance, in the kind of "grown-up" policy-making called for in this very paper? Or making Scotland's education system once more the envy of the world?

Such major collaborative processes would ensure that all parties take notice of all the problems and take ownership of all the solutions, rather than using both as ammunition in their proxy wars. At the same time, the very act of co-operation will teach the politicians that their opponents are not black-hearted monsters – and the SNP may even get to like working with Scottish opinion rather than against it. We can live in hope.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

IF Finance Secretaries would only recast their roles as prudent, responsible householders, the nation's money would be better spent and resources better cared for. Nowadays, the way they behave often suggests that they become rather confused by sitting amidst vast piles of money, almost as if it were to be directed for their personal household expenditures.

Constant calls and plans for "new", additional taxes abound, for tourists, parking, and so on. Claims are made that public services will thereby benefit but existing commitments will likely become the real "drain".

Thus, we in the UK have embarked, long term, on spending trillions in the vain hope and belief of offsetting adverse global climate events by decarbonisation of home and industry despite contributing negligibly to global greenhouse gas release. Serious questions have arisen about alleged conflicts of interests in the Committee on Climate Change, which is hugely influential in deciding our government's "green" spending policies.

Secondly, without any moral or evident legal need, our PM has offered £39 billion as an EU "divorce sweetener", which, were it spent, would compromise financial savings in gaining Brexit, depriving outlays on vital national priorities.

The rather indiscriminate foreign aid budget, set as a percentage of GDP, has in reality been found difficult to spend on deserving worldwide causes. This means that revision of the policy is vital.

Disposals of viable UK businesses in recent years so as to defray national debts, sounds very like "selling the family silver", and hardly prudent.

The political pay-off to the DUP of Northern Ireland at least keeps the money "at home" in the UK.

Politicians in the UK, including Scotland, instead of forever seeking enhanced tax returns, should rather, surely, aim to cut some of their more profligate, safely-avoidable spending?

(Dr) Charles Wardrop,

111 Viewlands Road West, Perth.

THOSE determined to see Scotland leave the UK sooner rather than later are no doubt frustrated that two years of attempting to link the Brexit process with independence has failed to move the balance of public opinion in Scotland. Yet an air of desperation is starting to come through with recent comments. First some more hard-line supporters of Scottish nationalism are openly speculating about the possible use of a Catalan-style referendum that does not have the force of law. At the same time, on the calmer wing of the movement, author of the Growth Commission report Andrew Wilson, is now talking of the “softest possible form of Scottish independence”.

Neither ignoring the need for legal authority, nor pretending that breaking up the UK will sound more palatable if you describe it as "soft", will do anything positive for Scotland, and its people will see through both ideas as simply shallow gimmicks.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

YOU report yet more evidence that the Scottish Government is getting on with the day job, despite the cliff-edge Brexit that is approaching, which may well have an impact on our social security system ("100 new social security jobs", The Herald, February 14). Scotland’s social security system is in its early years with 15 per cent of all welfare spend in Scotland being devolved to Holyrood. In the establishment of Scotland’s social security system the Scottish Government has put "dignity and respect" to the fore. So it was very satisfying and goes some way to promote those values to learn that each local authority in Scotland will receive a social security team leader and this will be further enhanced by 68 support workers.

The public have no confidence in social security at present due to the Westminster Government’s shambolic introduction of Universal Credit, so the Scottish Government has much to do with the percentage spend on social security that is being devolved to Holyrood to gain any confidence from the end user. The devolved welfare powers will affect approximately one million benefit claimants in Scotland and those future appointments will realise in excess of 500 jobs being created through Social Security Scotland with the establishment of Social Security main offices in Glasgow and Dundee a very welcome addition to our jobs market.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive, Banknock, Falkirk.

Read more: Why the UK shouldn't veto a second referendum