I have reservations about the suggestion by Ian W Thomson that in the independence referendum it will be the head and not the heart that votes (Letters, April 24).

"This Sceptred Isle", the study reported in The Herald ("Study reveals what makes Scots proud", April 23), reinforces in an oblique way my own doubts. The study, which was very small and hardly meaningful politically, having only 556 Scottish respondents, seems to me related to Andrew McKie's article on our national identity ("Independence could rob us of our sense of nationality", The Herald, April 23). Even with such a tiny sample it raises again the question over not how united the UK is but how unified Scotland feels.

We are still being coerced into perceiving Gaelic as our national language – indeed 67% polled thought it was pride evoking – when the case is not substantiated by evidence in the actual population who feel so proud they should learn it. People often only say what they think is expected of them.

Robert Burns, for example, who figures highly in the polled national sense of pride, did not speak Gaelic but Scots, as he was a Lowlander. I recall that he probably learned enough words to respond when he thought he would be having a Highland wedding ceremony with Hielan' Mary.

I have to say that the questionnaire for this study was loaded towards romanticised stereotypes and I hope in reality that many Scots would reflect with pride on the enormous practical impact Scottish figures such as James Watt have had on world development rather than the sentimentality of Sir Walter Scott and Burns.

The study illustrates how important any referendum question is. Seemingly and bizarrely, 68% of Scots in the study felt that haggis evoked pride but I suspect that if porridge had been included in the questionnaire it would have been the same result among those who seldom sample either.

I fear that when many Scots find themselves standing in the polling booth they will be too dreamy-eyed to consider our balance of payments deficit.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

May I offer a word of reassurance to Alastair MacKenzie who is concerned about the serious risk of a single-party state emerging in an independent Scotland (Letters, 23 April)?

I have recently been trawling through the list of candidates for the forthcoming Glasgow City Council elections, and have noticed that there are nominations not just from the four main Scottish political parties – Labour, the SNP, the Tories and the LibDems – but from at least 10 other distinct political parties or groups, including the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party (as well as Tommy Sheridan's breakaway Solidarity Party) not to mention a smattering of independents. I suspect this pattern is replicated in the nominations for the 31 other local authorities.

I cannot believe that all these differences of Scottish political and ideological opinion will suddenly disappear in the aftermath of independence, though I take Mr MacKenzie's point about the need for the erstwhile Unionist parties to up their game to take account of the new constitutional situation if they are then going to stand a chance of replacing the SNP in the electoral affections of the people.

Ian O Bayne,

8 Clarence Drive,

Glasgow.

Andrew McKie writes that Robert Burns was a confirmed Unionist.

Burns was almost cited for sedition and treason because of his pro-independent Scottish writings, including "Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation" and "Scots Wha' Hae".

As an employee of HM Revenue he found he had to temper his writings; better to be diplomatic and alive than be executed or imprisoned for treason.

Still he often managed to express himself quite clearly. Burns wrote in a letter to a Mrs Dunlop in 1792 the following: "Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my country reaps from a certain Union that counterbalance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her name!"

Roger Graham,

23 Cullen Crescent,

Inverkip.

It surprises me that Nadine Dorries's assertion that David Cameron and George Osborne are "two arrogant posh boys" is deemed an acceptable character indictment ("'Posh boy' row mars apology by Prime Minister", The Herald, April 24).

Would the antithesis of this pejorative term, such as "pleb", be considered quite as reasonable a criticism as to the competency of a politician? I think not.

Ross Brown,

18 Drums Terrace, Greenock.