When it became clear, belatedly, that the Yes campaign might actually win the referendum, the three Unionist parties began to desperately offer what Alex Gallagher's Labour colleague Gordon Brown described as home rule ("Brown accuses Cameron of setting trap for Scots voters", The Herald, October 1).

These were his own words in the last few days of the campaign.

If we are to assume he made this offer on behalf of the No campaign in an attempt to persuade undecided voters to cast for No, then he must be held accountable. That is simple logic.

Perhaps, of course, he did not actually mean "Home Rule", which I understand to be power over everything except foreign affairs and defence. In that case Brown is guilty of outright deception.

This belated offer made in panic was also in opposition to the spirit of the Edinburgh Agreement.

I am sure had real Home Rule been on the ballot paper from the beginning, properly outlined and understood by everyone, it would have been the overwhelming choice of the people of Scotland. That, of course, is why it was never an option. The No campaign felt they were going to win easily.

There is standing logic on its head and then there is complete hypocrisy.

Roger Graham,

23 Cullen Crescent,

Inverkip.

In the final week of the referendum campaign Gordon Brown fronted a Better Together vow, signed by the leaders of the three UK parties guaranteeing substantial new powers for Scotland in the event of a No vote.

Now we have Gordon Brown begging us to sign a petition demanding the UK partners honour the vow.

So none of it was actually "guaranteed"?

Was Gordon Brown hoodwinked into a trap? Or did Gordon Brown lead many trusting Scots into a trap? It has to be one or the other

Dave McEwan Hill,

1 Tom Nan Ragh,

Dalinlongart,

Sandbank.

It is a sad indictment of the Unionist politicians that after only two weeks of the referendum vote they are unable to honour the vow. The man accredited with saving the Union only a few ago is crying foul of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The 1.6 million Scots who voted Yes have been vindicated. I guess a large number of those who voted No will be feeling as if they have been duped. Better Together? Let's see.

Roddy MacDonald,

1 Glenmount Place,

Ayr.

I agree with Neil Sinclair that the Yes campaign became far too evangelical (Letters, October 1). Towards the end there was far too much of a "one true faith" attitude. The vote was always going to be far too close for that kind of rhetoric even had the hoped for 65 per cent Yes result been attained ("Revealed: Yes Scotland aimed for 65% of votes, £24m war chest and backing from five papers", The Herald, September 30). There was always going to be a sizeable number of disgruntled populace stigmatised as "heretics". It is now time to step back, make friends again and work together to fix our badly broken society.

WB Richardson,

1 Weston Place,

Prestwick.

Sheena McCallum-Caron (Letters, September 30) wonders why we accept election results when there is an apparent lack of robust scrutiny of those turning up to vote.

In the first place there does not appear to be widespread abuse, and even if there is limited abuse it is quite likely those abusing the system in favour of one candidate will be cancelled out by their opponents. The second reason is that to require appropriate identity will disenfranchise a significant number of voters.

Those without valid passports or photo driving licences will be prevented from voting, which would be unfortunate given the high turnout in the recent referendum.

Even if identity checks were made I am quite sure it would be relatively easy to impersonate someone else, especially when you have their consent to do so. Most young people who have grown up in recent times when more stringent checks were made to verify identity when alcohol was being purchased will tell you that a change of hairstyle or, in the case of girls, a change in make-up is all that is required.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens,

Edinburgh.