An emotional vote has no place in the debate on independence

His suggestion that the result would be binding even if determined by one vote only illustrates the substantial added-value given to the concept of a vote in the case of such a key national ballot.

The problem lies in the essential power of a vote in the case of the referendum. If a Bill Brown and not a Joe Bloggs wins an election for his local council lasting a few years on the basis of one vote then the importance one way or another is very limited in the great scheme of things.

The power of a referendum vote is quite different in significance. The issue in the context of nationalism is that for some people, putting their cross in a box will not be what I would consider a real vote at all. It will be no more than an expression of trendy feeling.

An emotional vote has no place in the debate. It will, for some, be given as much consideration as picking national lottery numbers.This is perhaps the price we pay for democracy.

I suggest a vote on the future of Scotland should be wholly cerebral, being a deeply considered and extended analysis of the facts including such areas as international commitments, trade and relationships. Implicit in the decision must be a study by the voter of the probability of independence being financially future-proofed compared with the present Union. The voters deciding on September 18 next year will carry such a heavy burden of responsibility it seems incredible that we still have so little in the way of convincing detail from the protagonists for separation.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

ALEX Gallagher and Peter A Russell (Letters, May 17) appear to be in favour of fixed constitutional rules for the conduct of referendums. As supporters of the Union, surely they should be proud of the boasted merits of the UK's "unwritten constitution", which can be re-written by a vote with a majority of one in the House of Commons?

Robin MacCormick,

82 Dalkeith Road,

Edinburgh.

IF Ukip leader Nigel Farage was here to support his candidate in the Aberdeen Donside constituency, why was he doing in it a pub on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh ("Farage is forced to flee from Royal Mile protesters", The Herald, May 17)? Is his knowledge of Scotland's geography so sketchy, or did he just think he would get more publicity in the Scottish capital than in Aberdeen, which he probably thinks is in the wilds of the Highlands?

His image as a "man of the people", always smoking and having a pint in a pub, was severely dented when he couldn't cope with a bunch of noisy students who objected to him sticking his nose into Scottlsh affairs. Describing them as "anti-English racists" betrayed his own mindset, usually carefully kept hidden under his public persona of geniality and good humour.

Mr Farage argues that he wants his country to regain its independence by escaping from the domination of a much larger political and social union –that is, Britain out of the European Union. But he is opposed to exactly the same desire for Scotland to regain its independence from the political dominance of the United Kingdom. He doesn't seem to appreciate the inconsistency and lack of logic in his stance. Perhaps if he listened more and spoke less he would get a better understanding of the political situation in Scotland.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

BARRICADED in a pub by the police, and disparaged for being English by members of the nationalist socialist youth movement, Radical Independence, Nigel Farage could not have wished for better during his visit to Edinburgh.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.

The welcome given to Nigel Farage on his visit to Edinburgh was reminiscent of the protests which often greeted the late Mrs Thatcher when she ventured north of the Border.

It is significant that while Mr Farage has just seen his party gain considerable support in England, Scotland appears to have its own distinctive view of Ukip's policies and values, once again bringing into sharp focus the differences in what is increasingly becoming a politically dis-United Kingdom.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

According to First Minister Alex Salmond, a Yes vote in the independence referendum is the only way to keep Scots in the European Union ("PM defends decision to bring forward EU referendum bill", The Herald, May 15).

I trust Mr Salmond was expressing his own personal opinion?

Neither he nor anyone else has the authority to decide what the people of Scotland may decide in the event of a Yes vote.

Should there be a majority Yes vote, Scotland immediately becomes an independent nation state, where the sovereignty of the people takes precedence and Scotland's written constitutional law becomes the primus legal system.

At that point, Scottish realpolitik becomes the fundamental political philosophy of Scotland's legislature governed only by Scotland's written constitution.

All of Scotland's politicians should immediately understand the difference between the realpolitik of Scottish sovereignty in an independent Scotland and the osmosis of Westminster's present belief in parliamentary sovereignty?

In the event of a majority for independence Scotland's Law Lords would be required to advise Scotland's legislators how best to seek the "will of the people of Scotland" in a multi-option referendum as to the structure and infrastructure the people want in the governance of their nation state. Thus Scottish sovereignty may determine issues such as currency, Nato, Trident, the monarchy, membership or not of the EU and so on, with amendments for the 21st century.

The people of Scotland will have their nation back under the conditions and circumstances of their written constitution (dormant for more than 300 years) which was not compromised by the 1707 Treaty of Union. Once again the people of Scotland will be in control with a legislature designed to serve the will of the people.

John JG McGill,

25 Wallace View, Riccarton,

Kilmarnock.

ONE possible explanation of the difference between Scotland and England in attitude to the EU dates from the 1960s and 70s, when the UK's membership was first mooted.

Britain had in living memory experienced leading and then surrendering an empire. The ties with Commonwealth countries were noticeably loosening.

With this track record, many (particularly in the Conservative Party, who were then enthusiastically pro-Europe) assumed that, if Britain did join the Common Market, it would become the natural leader, accepted by all.

When it didn't turn out that way many of the Tories lost their taste for Europe. Little Englanders find it difficult to play for any team in which they're not captain or at least (as with Nato) vice-captain.

Mary McCabe,

25 Circus Drive,

Glasgow.