Ian Bell's argument ("Any independence talk by the LibDems is falling on deaf ears", The Herald, September 21) is muddled to the point of confusion.

Liberal Democrats, elected or not, have as much right as anyone to get involved in the debate on Scotland’s future – including Scots who discuss this down the local pub every evening.

In one breath saying the LibDems have no right to demand answers on the independence argument while in the next saying the SNP do have serious questions to address will simply not wash.

To mock the establishment of a group to set out the intellectual case for a post-Scotland Bill future is a callow response to a subject that deserves wider and greater debate than is currently allowed.

Instead of dismissing ideas, why not consider them first? At that point everyone has the right to disagree with views raised, just as I strongly disagree that separation from the UK is the best way forward for Scotland.

But as we set out a better way to approach the status quo v independence argument over the coming months, it is a shame the deaf ears belong to Mr Bell.

The Scottish people are listening, and Liberal Democrats intend to be heard.

Alistair Carmichael,

Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland,

Houses of Parliament,

Westminster.

Ian Bell’s splendid article on the LibDems’ view of Scottish independence brings into focus the position of Unionist supporters. It is typical that the narrow-minded fight to defend the Union is being led, in London, by a political party with one Scottish MP, and two Scottish-born members of a political party now totally discredited in Scotland.

Supporters of the Union, rather than simply asking for Alex Salmond to outline his plans for an independent Scotland, should highlight what they perceive to be the benefits to Scotland for remaining linked to Westminster.

Their points aired recently have mainly been historical, threatening and intimidating and take no account of Scotland’s present subordinate position in a Union of so-called “equality” and lack of freedom to guide our a Scottish future. In the light of Westminster’s recent governance of the UK and the UK’s dire financial position, supporters of the Union will have great difficulty in finding convincing arguments.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

Nick Clegg’s latest intrusion into Scottish politics beggars belief.

He accuses Alex Salmond of playing cat and mouse with the Scottish electorate over a referendum on independence. In fact, Mr Salmond was quite specific on a referendum in the SNP manifesto prior to the elections in Scotland. He said a referendum would take place towards the latter part of the term of office. He has not deviated from that.

Mr Clegg’s party was almost obliterated in that Scottish election and now has five out of 129 seats.

When this was pointed out to Mr Clegg his reply was that it was a waste of time “raking over the past”. He also said that the LibDem-Tory Coalition in Westminster was popular in Scotland. On these points the leader of the Liberals departed from any sense of reality about what democracy is all about. The Coalition parties in Scotland have 20 seats out of 129.

It will be up to the Scottish people whether or not they decided upon independence, not the rantings of someone whose party ought to be questioning their current relevance within Scottish politics.

On the subject of whether or not Scotland would be better or worse off financially if she were independent, I am more impressed by the objective views of renowned economist Andrew Hughes Hallett than any politician. He states quite clearly that an independent Scotland, based on the figures from the last five years and taking into account various factors conveniently swept under a carpet by the Unionist lobby, would be at least slightly better off as an independent nation in financial terms.

In other words he dismisses the propaganda, put forward in the emotional language of the Unionist parties, of Scotland being “torn apart” and “ripped asunder”. Contrary to the pro-Union anti-Scotland media, Mr Hughes Hallett says that if anyone is being subsidised it is not Scotland, but England.

Scotland will decide its own future, whether within or outside of the Union. That should take place in the context of a mature and honest debate. It should also take place without the patronising contributions of Mr Clegg. His principal concern, one would have thought, ought to be how to restore a modicum of credibility to his own party.

Roger Graham,

23 Cullen Crescent,

Inverkip.