David Wynne at home in 1993 Photo: REX FEATURES

David Wynne, who has died aged 88, was at the forefront of British sculpture, though he never went to art school; this was an omission which freed him from a preoccupation with movements and trends, though it never won him any favours with the art establishment.

In London alone, Wynne was responsible for a huge number of important public commissions. He carved one of the capital’s best-loved animal figures, Guy the Gorilla, in Crystal Palace Park. He sculpted Boy with a Dolphin at the Chelsea end of Albert Bridge, and Girl with a Dolphin outside Tower Bridge.

^{Boy with a Dolphin’ sculpture by David Wynne, 1975, on Cheyne Walk in Chelsea (REX FEATURES)}

He created adornments for the Playboy empire and for the Cadogan Estate. He sculpted the massive Teamwork, featuring four men pulling a rope, for the headquarters of the builders Taylor Woodrow, and the Embracing Lovers at the Guildhall.

Elsewhere he sculpted the Tyne God fountain in Newcastle upon Tyne; Christ and Mary Magdalene at Ely Cathedral; and a Risen Christ for the front of Wells Cathedral, one of his most famous commissions.

His portraits included the Queen and the Prince of Wales, Sir John Gielgud, Lord Attenborough, Sir Yehudi Menuhin, Sir Thomas Beecham (who said the piece reminded him of all the mistakes his orchestra had made in the previous 10 years), the four Beatles and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (whom he introduced to the group), and the Derby-winning racehorse Shergar.

In 1973 he designed the linked hands on the 50p pieces that marked Britain’s entry into the European Community. Some of Wynne’s most striking pieces were designed for garden settings. He created works for the Abbey Gardens at Tresco, including Gaia, a sculpture made from South African marble, which has a South African planting around it. The Prince of Wales was so taken by the figure he commissioned a similar piece, called Goddess of the Woods, for his gardens at Highgrove.

But Wynne was not a sculptor whose work was ever likely to feature at the Tate. His devotion to the figurative genre made him popular with patrons and the general public, but not with the art establishment — a fact which Wynne attributed to a deep-seated resentment at the success of a sculptor who never went to art school.

Whether this accounted for the venom directed at him over his most controversial work — the centrepiece of the Queen Elizabeth Gate at Hyde Park Corner, commissioned by Prince Michael of Kent in 1990 to commemorate his aunt’s 90th birthday — is not easy to say. Featuring a colourful and stylised lion and unicorn prancing around a tree filled with birds and animals, the design (and the gates by Giuseppe Lund) provoked strong and mostly negative reactions among the nation’s art critics. “All I can say about the Queen Elizabeth Gate is ‘Good grief’,” wrote The Daily Telegraph’s critic Richard Dorment. Wynne’s centrepiece, he proclaimed, was “just plain naff” and the Lund gates were “a total failure, a mess, an eyesore”.

The torrent of criticism did not seem to bother Wynne, who felt secure in the confidence that the Queen Mother loved the gates and that they were a true reflection of her personality — “essentially feminine, and with the popular touch”. Besides, as he observed, quoting Alexander Pope: “Nobody has yet erected a statue to a critic and I doubt anybody ever will.”

The son of a naval officer, David Wynne was born in the New Forest on May 25 1926. A weak child, he was bullied at Stowe and successful neither at work nor at sport until he joined the Royal Navy in 1944. He realised that in order to combat a natural tendency to laziness he must become emotionally involved in work and that he wanted to sculpt.

After the war he started reading Zoology at Trinity College, Cambridge — somewhat half-heartedly. The story goes that when the dons saw some undergraduates’ heads he had made, they waived his exams and encouraged him to study fine art, which he did under the guidance of the classical scholar Andrew Gow.

Jacob Epstein was an early mentor and patrons such as GM Trevelyan and Alistair McAlpine gave Wynne a helping hand in his early years. On Epstein’s advice, Wynne’s father spent the last of his capital buying a studio for his son, and in 1955 David held his first one-man show, at the Leicester Galleries. Commissions steadily increased.

^{David Wynne with his sculpture of The Beatles, May 19 1964 (HULTON ARCHIVE)}

It was Guy the Gorilla which really established his career. Around 1960 the LCC asked him to make a sculpture for a high plinth at the Crystal Palace that would have railings around to keep out children. Wynne, who adored children, reacted by trying to think up something that children could play on and that was strong enough to stand up to them. He lighted on the idea of Guy the Gorilla, a great favourite of younger visitors to London Zoo.

When asked by Sue Lawley on Desert Island Discs whether he ever worked from photographs, Wynne replied that he never did. When preparing for a piece, he would live for weeks with his subject, studying its characteristic behaviour and movements.

While working on Boy with a Dolphin, he spent hours under water watching the animals’ movements. When Pepsi Cola gave him carte blanche for a large piece, he spent three weeks in the Rocky Mountains and came out with a grizzly bear fashioned from a 36-ton block of marble.

Large, curly-haired and brisk, Wynne had a diverse collection of friends, from members of the Royal family to the Beatles. He worked in Wimbledon and then Fulham, where he converted a former women’s prison into a studio. In his later years he moved to South Devon.

He was appointed OBE in 1994.

David Wynne married, in 1959, Gill Bennett (née Grant). Their long and happy marriage ended with her death in 1990. He is survived by their son and by a stepson and stepdaughter; another son predeceased him.

David Wynne, born May 25 1926, died September 4 2014

Polly Toynbee paints a terrifying, but accurate, picture of the NHS (Labour can only save the NHS by biting the tax bullet, 9 September). But her conclusion is not correct. There is another, better way.

There is a hidden assumption in her argument, which all the three main parties seem to share, that carrying on with Osborne-type cuts to 2019-20 to clear the budget deficit is somehow necessary and inevitable. It isn’t. Continued spending cuts, particularly in the NHS, in the sixth year of austerity with unemployment still over 2 million, is plain crackers, given the feedback effects that contract both incomes and government tax revenues. It isn’t even cutting the deficit. Alistair Darling’s two stimulatory budgets in 2009-10 brought the deficit down sharply from £157bn in 2009 to £118bn in 2011 – a reduction of nearly £40bn in just two years. Osborne’s austerity budgets have slowed the reduction to a trickle, down to £108bn now – a reduction of £10bn in three years. So which is more effective – public investment or spending cuts? It’s a no-brainer.

It’s not as though Osborne’s “recovery” offers an alternative either. Hardly anything has recovered except financial services. Wage levels, business investment, productivity, private debt and the trade gap are all strongly negative. The need for public investment now to kickstart the economy, when private investment is still flat on its back, is overwhelming. A £30bn investment package that could be funded for £150m at current interest rates would generate a million jobs within two years, increase incomes and cut the deficit far faster than the current prolonged austerity. It could even be funded without any increase in public borrowing at all, either by mandating the publicly owned banks RBS and Lloyds to prioritise lending for British industry, or by electronic printing of money (QE) targeted directly on industrial investment, or by a super-tax on the 1% ultra-rich.

The whole economy would at last revive, not just the froth at the top, and the straitjacket of Osbornomics and endless cuts would be removed. The financial pressures on the NHS wouldn’t melt away, but they would be enormously eased.
Michael Meacher MP
Labour, Oldham West and Royton

• Your 8 September edition highlighted the dangers to the NHS caused by the government’s top-down reorganisation (Cancer services weakened by NHS revamp, says report) and the secret negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which locks in privatisation (Unions say planned trade deal poses threat to NHS). What a pity, then, that while you were able to use your whole centrefold for images of the Great North Run, with multiple logos of the sponsor, Bupa, prominently displayed, you could find no space for photos, or indeed any coverage, of the banners carried by the Darlington Mums, who had completed their 300-mile march from Jarrow in defence of the NHS on the previous day, nor of the thousands who turned out to meet them in Trafalgar Square. Consequently, you did not report Andy Burnham’s pledges at the rally to restore the secretary of state’s responsibility for service provision, make the NHS the preferred provider, repeal the Health and Social Care Act, and exempt the NHS from TTIP. The fight for an NHS that puts people above profit continues, and your paper needs to be at the forefront of those not only reporting that fight but ensuring that politicians’ promises are widely publicised so that they can be held to account for delivering on them.
Dr Anthony Isaacs
London

• As one of the dozen or so people who gave up three weeks of my life to march the 300 miles from Jarrow to Westminster on the People’s March for the NHS, I was underwhelmed by the national media’s grasp of the predicament of UK taxpayers and disappointed at the poor reporting of the main issue.

Even your own online report (NHS ‘People’s March’ campaigners arrive in London after 300-mile march, 6 September) failed to place things in context when referring to the fact that only 6% of the NHS budget is spent on private healthcare. As an experienced health commissioner I can explain the workings of the clinical commissioning groups. We will begin to see radical changes to where the NHS budget is spent only once CCGs have rewritten the documentation for invitations to tender. The first wave of contracts will be let next April; then I expect the volume to increase in subsequent years. Therefore Oliver Letwin is perfectly correct, if he indeed said that the NHS will no longer exist in five years.

Few people we met on our long march wanted to pay the additional funds that will be necessary to maintain a more expensive health system where shareholder dividends are prioritised over the needs of patients. The new system will mirror the one in the US, and our wellbeing will suffer significantly.
Fiona Dent
Holyport, Berkshire

Your report (Lammy joins London mayor race, 5 September) cites several other possible candidates for the 2016 mayoral election, none of whom have declared, while ignoring the fact that I have been campaigning for two years to obtain the Labour nomination. There seems indeed to be some discomfort in the Westminster village about a political outsider challenging entrenched interests. Moreover, the contest is definitely to be held as a primary, as set out in the Collins review, which is precisely why I was encouraged to stand.
Christian Wolmar
London

• Doctor Who may be diverse in terms of gender, colour and sexual orientation (Who is diverse?, Letters, 4 September) but the programme is sadly speciesist when it comes to our own planet. While the Doctor cherishes all manner of species, robots, gases and rocks included, he shows no respect for any animal on the Earth other than humans. Indeed, he eats them. No, writers of Doctor Who, the Doctor would be vegan.
Richard Ross
London

• How can you have thought it was appropriate to illustrate a story about cramped flats (Report, 6 September) with a graphic showing a cat being swung by the tail? Perhaps you would like to refer back to one of your your own stories (Man filmed repeatedly swinging cat hands himself in, 11 November 2011).
Estella Baker
Leicester

• Can I suggest a guided tour of HMS Victory in Portsmouth, to see “the cat” of nine tails (used to inflict punishment) and then understand expressions such as “enough room to swing a cat” and “the cat’s out of the bag”. The guides are both informative and cheerful; however, like me, some will be pro-feline.
Michael Reekie
Shrewsbury

• Re Spike Milligan’s gravestone (Yogic flying, 6 September), the stuffy, censorious C of E wouldn’t allow his “I told you I was ill” dictum in English. The proudly Irish and atheist Spike would have appreciated the irony of it only being allowed written in the Irish language. Thus it says: Dúirt mé leat go raibh mé breoite.
Jeanne Rathbone (aka Sheela-na-Gig)
London

All those who work in policing will be surprised that you can publish an article about the way the police handle reports of crime (Police tell victims to solve crimes themselves, 4 September) without mentioning the biggest issue in policing: the ongoing reductions in funding.

The police service has already been reduced by over 30,000 staff and, as the home secretary made clear last week, these cuts will continue into the future. Faced with this, police forces have to constantly review every part of their operation to see where efficiencies can be gained, but this inevitably involves hard decisions on dealing with more reports over the telephone and trying to get more public involvement in reducing crime and disorder through the use of volunteers.

The principles of UK policing as laid down by its founder, Sir Robert Peel, has always been this concept of cooperation between police and public, and history and experience show it produces far better outcomes.

There is another issue here, however: recent reports on child sexual exploitation and domestic violence have shown that the police need to give far greater priority and effort to protecting vulnerable people. Given declining budgets, this will have to involve a shift from the priority given to some aspects of property crime, often the legacy of previous performance target regimes now thankfully abandoned by the home secretary and most police and crime commissioners.
Peter Fahy
Chief constable, Greater Manchester police

• I cannot count the number of times the public has been warned of the dangers of “taking the law into their own hands”. Now suddenly it’s what we’re supposed to do. The problem is, as it ever has been, that self-help investigation leads by a short route to self-help punishment, invariably violent. So the police get involved again. Not very clever. A government that reduces police funding so far below safe levels does not deserve the title.
Colin Yarnley
Southwell, Nottinghamshire

You report that the coalition partners are looking to make changes in the Work Programme in their manifestos (Lib Dems widen attack after bedroom tax victory, 8 September). We agree improvements can be made. Much has been learned about about how to support the long-term unemployed over the last few years, particularly during a time of recession.  However, it is important that all politicians remain committed to helping the long-term unemployed back into sustainable employment.

Since 2011, the Work Programme has helped more than half a million people into work. Of these, more than 300,000 are already in long-term employment. This is a win-win for taxpayer, employers and, crucially, jobseekers themselves.

As employers we believe that the commitment of politicians to employment support – whether the Work Programme or a different scheme – must continue. We are asking for all politicians to put aside their difference and to put the long-term interests of the country and jobseekers first.
Paula McCarthy Domus Healthcare,

Simon Wilson Intelling

Adrian Swain MAS Landscapes

Andrew Grant Major Energy

Andrew Levesley Building and Property Maintenance

Anita Adams MTL Group

Ash Sawney Ocado

Your editorial on the selection of the chief executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region by universal suffrage (A foolish decision, 3 September) is a groundless attack on China’s Hong Kong policy and lacks basic historical knowledge.

According to the decision adopted by the standing committee of China’s National People’s Congress, starting from 2017, the selection of the Hong Kong chief executive may be implemented by universal suffrage. It means that if implemented smoothly, only 20 years after Hong Kong’s return to the motherland, 5 million eligible voters of its 7 million population will be able to directly elect the chief executive through one-person-one-vote for the first time in history. It shows the rapid progress in Hong Kong’s democratic development and the broad base of consensus it enjoys. Such a major step forward could only be dreamed of during the 150 years of British rule.

The Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 made no mention of universal suffrage. It is the Chinese government who first proposed selection of the Hong Kong chief executive by universal suffrage, which was then clearly written into the 1990 Hong Kong Basic Law. It is thus incomprehensible how the editorial can argue “reasonably” that “China has broken the promises it made”.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Chinese government is firmly dedicated to the development of various causes in Hong Kong, democratic politics included. At the same time, Hong Kong’s political structure needs to improve by gradual and steady progress. The pressing task now is to make that first step forward and reasonably conclude the political debate that has hung over Hong Kong society for 20 years. Only thus can Hong Kong concentrate on its development and keep its competitive edge.
Miao Deyu
Chinese embassy, London

Perhaps Westminster politicians should have spent more time creating a more equal and fair UK to help keep the union together rather than trying to act as policemen to the world with an overblown self-image, attitude and organisational way of operating across the UK that is a leftover from the UK as a colonial power, with Westminster reluctant to let go (Shock new poll says Scots set to vote yes to independence, 7 September). A more fair society can’t have all the power in one place. This is not just unfair, it is ridiculous.

Regardless of the outcome of the Scottish independence vote, more independence from Westminster will, I am sure, now be on the agenda for English regions, Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of more power to raise revenue and decide how it will be spent.

However, it might take a little while for Westminster politicians to catch up with this trend that started way back in faraway colonies that did eventually get their independence: God bless America! It can take a while for some things to sink in: the English take a tad too much pride in a tradition that can hold us back while holding us together.
Vaughan Thomas
Norwich

• Discussions of the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence have been obscured by a fog of political mendacity and confidently presented spurious economics. There are two important points that have been ignored by many commentators. The first is that the Bank of England, despite its misleading name, is the central bank of the United Kingdom so that Scotland should have a part to play in the management of its assets, liabilities and operations.

The second is that the United Kingdom was formed by the union of two nations, England and Scotland, and the subsequent formalised unions with Wales and Ireland were with this United Kingdom, not with England. In the event of the primary union being dissolved, there would be no UK left because the political entity that Wales and Northern Ireland joined would have ceased to exist.

Portraying the UK as a confederation of four equivalent components is probably incorrect, even if politically convenient.
Peter Dryburgh
Edinburgh

• Deborah Orr is sad that an option for major reform of the union is not on the ballot in the Scottish referendum (Debate has intoxicated Scotland, 5 September), but it may be that that question really needs broader involvement of the people of these islands. The truth is that we don’t really know what will happen if the Scots vote to break up the status quo. Anything is possible, as Osborne’s comic rush to get reforms in place following single opinion poll putting the yes vote ahead: after years of being ignored in Westminster, the Scots can now shift policy overnight through an opinion poll. Who knows, if the yes vote in the next poll increases again we might find that it is possible to negotiate on Trident after all.

We don’t know what will happen after a yes vote, partly because many in the no camp refused to contemplate any form of constructive engagement. The details of the future relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will take time to sort out: doing so will be the responsibility of the government elected next May. A yes victory will make those May elections far more interesting than any these countries have seen in living memory, making critical decisions about the structure of our society and letting us south of the border share the intoxication now gripping Scotland.
Martin Juckes
Reading

• Simon Jenkins again calls for a non-monetary vision of the future of the UK to inspire a no vote and loyalty from its constituent parts (A yes vote will produce a leaner, meaner Scotland, 5 September), and on the same day Jeffrey Henderson (Letters) calls for a governmental federal structure to be established. I should like to put the two together and say that a federal structure would call for a federal capital and that its creation could be the basis for a new vision.

In December 2011, the centenary of the announcement of moving the capital of British India from Calcutta to Delhi, the Architectural Review published an article of mine arguing that a similar move should be considered for this country.

The reasons were both economic and political: the urgent need to spread prosperity and the pressure for development away from the south-east, and the political need for a structure where the capital of the UK was not also the capital of England.

A hundred years ago, wealth was fairly evenly distributed, with thriving industry in the north and west and commerce and government in the south-east. But with industry no longer thriving, everything – both government and commerce – is now concentrated in the south-east.

Commerce we cannot move, but government we can. The government whose duty is to serve the whole country equally should be located in the place where it can best do so.
James Dunnett
London

• Mark Tran (Ministers try the Quebec ploy, 7 September) might have mentioned that the Parti Québecois supports “sovereignty partnership” with the rest of Canada, which, among other things, would mean that a sovereign Quebec would retain the Canadian dollar and the Canadian military. Nor should it be forgotten that the Cree people are demanding that Québec reverts to its pre-1912 boundaries, whereby the Cree would achieve a form of confederated “culture-land” within the Canadian nation state.

The picture across Canada is complex, especially in Alberta and British Columbia in relation to the so-called Northern Gateway and the actual and potential destruction of the ecology and community lives of First Nation people and their neighbours. Canada today is far from being a country at ease with itself, and not just in Quebec.
Bruce Ross-Smith
Oxford

• I think Jonathan Freedland misunderstands what is happening in Scotland (If Britain loses Scotland, it will feel like an amputation, 5 September). The case being made for Scottish “separation” (sic) is notable in part precisely because, by proposing a currency union along with various measures of “social union”, it implicitly acknowledges that in today’s world total independence is impossible. The argument is: vote yes for a fresh start, on the basis of which we can then (through discussion and negotiation) develop areas of cooperation where it’s sensible; a new sort of union, then. The point about the fresh start is that it offers a way of jolting our sclerotic body politic off its deathbed. But a yes vote wouldn’t end interdependence, nor destroy the geo-cultural entity that is Britain.
Richard Middleton
Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway

People like me, psychologists who are aware of the power of the unconscious, are astonished by the lack of understanding shown by politicians, when, as with the coming referendum, policy and planning must be of concern to all the people. The word “yes” comes across as positive, full of energy and enthusiasm; “no” is felt as negative, passive, uncooperative.

For those concerned to keep the union, the slogan should have been: “Say yes to staying in the union, say no to not staying in the union.” Psychologists would have added a third slogan, “Yes to devo max”, in order to get past the crude polarity, and so increasing the chance of securing the yes. How clumsy the government has been to allow Alex Salmond to frame the choice (which concerns us all) in ways that suit him. Too late now – but what an opportunity lost.
Kate Springford
Lewes, East Sussex

• Whatever happens in Scotland’s referendum, can a new polity in both nations ensure that, in future, multi-option problems are resolved by multi-option ballots (Whatever Scots decide, the old order is dead and buried, 8 September)?

After all, a binary vote cannot measure consensus: with so many for and so many against, it calculates the very opposite, the degree of dissent.

Democratic decision-making should identify the collective will of those voting. Thus in multi-option preferential voting, people vote only in favour, albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and the count identifies that option which enjoys the highest level of overall support.
Peter Emerson
Director, the de Borda Institute

• With the sudden awareness of the importance of the Scottish referendum vote (Last stand to keep the union, 8 September), perhaps David Cameron should start apologising. Would any rational person agree to a major constitutional change resting on a simple majority of one? A single Scottish voter could be tired or a bit tipsy, maybe ticks the wrong box or accidentally spoils the ballot paper, and as result, Scotland becomes independent. Is that really a sensible way of deciding such an important question?

And, as we know, there is “the morning after” effect, after some rash behaviour the evening before. Would not rationality have suggested that there should at least be a follow-up “confirmation” vote, one way or the other?
Peter Cave
London

• It seems increasingly likely that the Scottish referendum could be decided on a very small majority. In the case of a no vote this might seem a fair outcome, to preserve the status quo. In the case of a yes vote, the question should perhaps arise as to how large a majority should be decisive. The apparently uncertain results of Scotland becoming independent surely require a significant majority in favour, or else half the population is in effect kidnapping the other half on a journey into unknown and possibly dangerous territory.

Furthermore, if residence is the only qualification for voting, what is the value of the opinions of native Scots people who may, even quite temporarily, be living “abroad”? Conversely, what is the value of votes cast by non-Scottish natives who happen to be living, however temporarily, in Scotland?

In the case of a very close result, such considerations as these latter could raise serious disputation as to the validity of either outcome.
Ian King
Westbury on Severn, Gloucestershire

• Can it really be right, sensible and acceptable that this vote, which is going to be too close to call, could be decided on perhaps one vote?

Can it be right that such seismic change, such massive ramifications for not just Scotland but England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well, can be put in train when the Scottish people are so palpably of two minds? Surely we should demand a majority of at least 10%.

This generation of politicians, whom we thought had reached a nadir over the expenses scandal, has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and incapable – presiding, it seems, over the break-up of the nation they were elected to serve. They have been incapable of even conducting a debate of the issues, of explaining and clarifying; incapable of establishing proper criteria for the outcomes either way.

From snooty, arrogant sneering down south, to bombastic name-calling and lack of substance in Holyrood, the political class has conducted this issue like a playground squabble. It is to their eternal shame.

It is now so obviously time for massive and wholescale reform of the political system and the governmental structures in this country. If Scotland goes, so should the whole system.
Nigel Cubbage
Merstham, Surrey

• If the recent polls are to be believed, it seems that the Scottish independence referendum is effectively going to be a tie. We thus have a situation where the 8% or 9% of the population to whom the potential break-up of the United Kingdom has been delegated cannot agree among themselves. Consequently, a majority in favour of Scottish independence of half a dozen (or less) would determine the future of the 91% or so of us who are left in the rump of what was the United Kingdom. An impartial observer from the planet Mars would surely conclude that this was a curious way to run a democracy.

There is another issue that does not seem to have been addressed, namely, who is paying for this referendum? Is it the Scottish taxpayer or the British taxpayer? I have a nasty suspicion that I know the answer. And on an allied subject, I am rather resigned to paying for the knock-on costs of the split if Scotland votes yes, but has a wise government considered what these will actually be, and what effect they will have on the British economy (or what is left of it)?
Stephen Thair
Old Basing, Hampshire

It was intriguing to note George Osborne claim that there will be supposed “new” powers announced for the Scottish parliament over the next few days (Last stand to keep the union, 8 September).

These are not “new” powers and what will simply be outlined is a timetable on how the paltry powers already outlined by the unionist parties will be implemented in the event of a no vote. As an aside, it is intriguing to note that these same people refused to put this option on the ballot paper when given the opportunity to do so.

Over the next 10 days those wanting to retain the current union will throw everything bar the kitchen sink at the campaign to keep Scotland. Those voting no or who are undecided should ask themselves one simple question: “Why?”
Alex Orr
Edinburgh

• Arguing that Scotland could not go it alone is rather pointless, when one just has to look at the experience of Ireland (The clock ticks, the polls narrow, 8 September). If the Westminster parties are desperate enough in their desire to save the union, there are two things they could do. The first is to give an undertaking to remove all nuclear weapons from Scotland after a no vote. Since this will have to be done anyway after a yes vote, one might as well face up to it. Having the union and Faslane both is probably no longer a realistic expectation. Secondly, there needs to be a guarantee that after a no vote, under no circumstances will Scotland be dragged out of the EU. If this means giving an undertaking not to hold any in/out referendum, so be it; better no referendum than no UK.

These two measures would spike two of the yes campaign’s most powerful guns. They might be drastic, but if the union is to be preserved, drastic measures are now needed.
Roger Musson
Edinburgh

• Proposing greater powers for the Scottish parliament after a no vote is illogical. A no vote will be a vote for sweeping away all the time-wasting farrago of a “Scottish parliament” and “first minister”, and replacing them with two or three city regions, with councils and mayors.

It would be sensible if this were accompanied by a system of regional councils in England, but since there is currently no popular English enthusiasm for additional layers of local government, this should be deferred for further discussion.

Encouraging Gordon Brown to forget that he is no longer prime minister just emphasises how much the United Kingdom has suffered from Scottish Labour politicians’ obsession with sentimental nationalism rather than good government.
John Hall
Bristol

On western intervention

“We look at banning a party that won an election in Egypt, and back a repressive general who mounts a coup; we back Israel regardless of its lethally disproportionate response to rocket attacks; and we arm a feudal regime in Saudi Arabia that exported religious extremism around the globe with devastating consequences” (The west can’t solve the crisis in Iraq, 29 August). What a perfect summary of the policies of the people who claim to occupy the moral high ground! It is not surprising that many young men, disaffected with their countries of origin, have decided to flee to join a movement that in their eyes looks more honest.
Lucila Makin
Cambridge, UK

• Your letter writers (Reply, 29 August) commenting on Timothy Garton Ash’s article in the 8 August edition, and many others of us, would agree bedlam is left behind wherever western nations interfere in the affairs of other states – with or without good intentions. The arms industry prospers with the world in chaos.

Is it not ironic that these same nations that first went into Iraq to liberate it from its demonic leader are now returning to save its people from each other?
Rosemary Kornfeld
Mittagong, NSW, Australia

Scottish independence

There’s a certain fascination for a non-Scot in watching the debate about independence. It’s not the profound questions such as how long the oil will last or what currency would an independent Scotland use that draw the attention (29 August) so much as the anticipation of the chaos that would inevitably result from a yes vote. Being British, I am certain that there will have been no advance planning on either side as to the practicalities resulting from a breakaway Scotland.

For example, has the UK passport office prepared a list of Scottish holders of UK passports so that cancellation of their passports can be efficiently undertaken? Has the list been provided to the NHS to facilitate deregistration from GP surgeries of Scots living in the UK? Are there plans and draft contracts for the construction of the border crossing posts?

And on the Scottish side, have the necessary ceremonies been planned to allow members of the Scottish armed forces to unswear allegiance to the British monarch? Has the new Scottish monarch been decided? King Alex I of the House of Salmond, perhaps?

And finally, how will Scotland compensate for the kudos lost as a result of the British Open no longer being played on Scottish golf courses?
Alan Williams-Key
Madrid, Spain

• As a Welshman I want Scotland to stay … true to their dreams. I believe in a better Scotland for future generations, where society really does look out for one another from cradle to grave. Some say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – with a million in poverty and one in five Scots children affected by poverty – it’s broken.

Surely nobody doubts a Scotland that has a huge amount of Europe’s oil and gas couldn’t manage? And importantly, for the first time, a written constitution. A truly democratic, equal, free-of-Trident and prosperous Scotland is just the start of creating a new, better, fairer relationship between all the nations of these islands. Go for it, Scotland!
Chris Davies
Denbugh, UK

How much power is enough?

How much power is needed to move four people about with reasonable levels of speed and comfort? Any Ford Focus owner will testify that 100kW (134 horsepower) is perfectly adequate, and yet European auto manufacturers are allowed – indeed encouraged – to produce luxury cars and SUVs with four times this power.

On the other hand, if a common citizen employs a mere 2kW for the task of cleaning their house they will be pounced upon by Eurocrats for wasting energy (29 August). What better example could there be of how the luxuries of the rich and powerful are treated differently from the necessities of the rest of us?
Graham Andrews
Spokane, Washington, US

• You seem to have printed a right-wing tabloid article. I don’t regard the unfiltered opinions of Which? magazine as international news. Why haven’t you made contact with the elected representatives and officials responsible for the legislation on energy efficiency, as well as their critics, and written a properly researched, informative news piece? Why are you presenting EU minimum standards as “restricting choice”?
Anne Whyte
Oud-Heverlee, Belgium

Trouble in Tasmania

Your story Tasmania to tear up forestry peace deal (29 August) may have looked like a routine triumph of commercial over environmental concerns, but it is more bizarre than that. The logging industry that the state’s new Liberal government is vowing to resuscitate had, only a decade ago, the highest proportional rate of native forest destruction in the OECD.

This was achieved by virtually gifting most of the enormous public forest harvest to private woodchip operators. Over half the industry jobs disappeared en route to the peak of the automated chipping frenzy a decade ago.

The new Liberal government, threatened by growing global concerns about climate change and sustainability, is considering ducking them through sales to China, burning trees for power generation and creating draconian laws against protests in the public forest “workplace”.

The scrapping of the peace deal, and the general hostility to conservation, may be best understood by analogy to the reactionary perversity that inspired the Afghan Taliban to dynamite the Bamiyan Buddhist sculptures.
John Hayward
Weegena, Tasmania, Australia

Importance of the siesta

Perhaps Stuart Heritage is unaware that in the majority of countries of the world a siesta is perfectly normal (29 August). A short sleep gives more energy for work in the second half of the day and this sensible habit is not restricted to hotter climates. In some cases it is even regarded as a right.

When we went to teach in China in the 80s we were at first taken aback to see that so many people appeared to be homeless and obliged to squat in their workplace. It was only later that we realised that the camp beds at the back of the room that you could see when you went into a store or a bank were there so that the workers could have their siesta.

The most blatant example of this was when I went to Lhasa and was told that the splendid hotel where I was lodged had recently been taken over by a private international company, but kept its local management. It seemed surprising that, although the hotel would often claim to be fully booked, if someone tried to make a reservation, a whole line of rooms on the top floor were never let.

Further investigation showed that they were regularly used by the staff for their siesta. And why not?
Pat Stapleton
Beaumont-du-Ventoux, France

Book superlatives

What a terrifically fascinating article by Nathan Filer (29 August), filled with inventive wit, jokes and many surprises. It is a piece of writing that is destined to move hundreds and thousands of book loving readers to tears. I ate up every single paragraph of this touching, funny and brilliant read and was left hungry for more. Filer is an author who is simply not from this world.

OK, so maybe I overdid this endorsement a little.

While reading the first few lines of Filer’s article on the superlatives in book blurbs, I was tempted to shout: “Well obviously!” Had I ever bought a book because of somebody’s quote on the cover? The answer is no.

There are also many varied works that I have been lured into reading by the simple phrase, “You must read this.” But sometimes I don’t even finish these.

So, yes, on the one hand never judge a book by those silly superlatives. But on the other hand don’t judge a book by however many people say it is an essential read.
Alexandra Wilbraham
Jena, Germany

Briefly

• Alison Flood’s Shortcuts column (15 August) described a children’s book, My Parents Open Carry, which the authors wrote because they had “looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any”. Doubtless the pro-gun lobby loves it, and it probably won’t be long before the NRA nominates it for an award – perhaps a Bullitzer prize?
Ken Burns
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

• Three of the sources quoted in your story on the British harvest, From berries to barley (29 August), are fine examples of nominative determinism. They should form a company to market natural foods. Their message would be admirably clear and moderate: Garner Wildish Oates.
Michael Appleby
Edinburgh, UK

Countrywide, predators such as magpies and sparrowhawks ‘have no negative impact whatsoever on native songbird species’

Sir, Clive Aslet (Sept 9) claims that “the jury is out” on the impact of predators on songbird populations. No it isn’t. The jury, in the form of numerous scientific papers, delivered its unanimous verdict long ago by showing conclusively that, countrywide, predators such as magpies and sparrowhawks have no negative impact whatsoever on native songbird species. Paradoxically, the presence of predators can have a beneficial effect on songbirds, by causing the latter to be lighter in weight and thus fitter and more agile in escaping possible predation.

Dr Sir Christopher Lever, Bt

Winkfield, Berks

Without solicitors, parents are being driven to the courts and to representing themselves

Sir, Making court rules simpler to help families to navigate the justice system is helpful but masks the real problem: families being in court in the first place. Solicitors steer families away from the courts and towards alternatives such as mediation. When mediation does not work, they encourage clients towards appropriate settlement of cases rather than fully contested hearings. Without solicitors, parents are being driven to the courts and to representing themselves (report, Sept 8, and letter, Sept 9).

The government’s cuts to legal aid, which came into force in April 2013, could easily cost more than the intended savings. Removing solicitors from the process is a false economy. It is the families fighting in court and their children who will suffer most.

Andrew Caplen

President, the Law Society

Man has rated these wonderful fish for centuries, but flying salmon? Leave that to the airlines

Sir, The “Salmon Cannon” (Sept 8) might make upstream migration less arduous and less traumatic but what about the returning fish (kelts) wanting to get back to the sea to recover from spawning or the young salmon (smolts) journeying to the sea to feed grow and mature? A device that sucks thousands of live fish through a tube at 22mph could not possibly cater for them — and certainly not for the Atlantic salmon in British rivers.

Pity the poor salmon. Man has rated these wonderful creatures for centuries, but flying salmon? Please leave that to the airlines.

Stephen M Fielding

Kirkbrae, Galashiels

Neonicotinoids ‘affect all insects as well as birds and other wildlife that encounter them in sufficient amounts’

Sir, Rob Yorke says that neonicotinoid insecticides “target specific pests” (Nature Notebook, Aug 16). This is misleading — they are broad spectrum toxins that affect all insects as well as birds and other wildlife that encounter them in sufficient amounts.

It is also unhelpful to give the impression that these chemicals do not target “bees and hoverflies”. While neonicotinoid use is intended to reduce populations of certain pests, there is significant collateral damage; 500 dead queen bumblebees were recently found containing high levels of neonicotinoids next to a field of oil seed rape at Havering, east London.

Dozens of scientific papers have now shown that the levels of neonicotinoids found in arable fields reduce the foraging and breeding success of bees. A partial ban is in place and for the sake of our bees and our food supply this ban should be broadened and extended.

Matt Shardlow

Chief executive, Buglife

Related Articles

• An ambitious barista can escape the daily grind

  09 Sep 2014