IT must have been coincidence for, first, an England-based Scot Andrew Marr to highlight Anglophobia risks in the referendum run-up, and 10 days later for a Scotland-based Englishman Sir John Elvidge to forecast a toxic legacy following the independence referendum ("Warning referendum divisions could leave a toxic legacy", The Herald, August 27).

I oppose both points of view. If there is Anglophobia, it is more than matched by English antagonism towards Scotland, as anyone who has followed the proceedings at Scottish Questions at Westminster would testify. We witness a succession of questions from, mainly, Conservative MPs for English constituencies, asking "for how much longer are English taxpayers going to be lumbered with subsidising the Jocks?", when there is no evidence for the proposition. Significantly, that line of questioning was put on ice while the Scotland Act, restricting Scotland to the Union, was being put through the House of Commons, and which led to the famous signing between Alex Salmond and David Cameron.

As for Sir John's comments about "polarisation", that, too, is determined by the English-dominated Unionist invective against the SNP and independence. Is it such a crime that Scotland should opt for that, without every opportunity being taken to put one hurdle after another in the way to obstruct progress? Sir John highlights the popular support for the so-called devo max option - why, then, was the English-dominated Westminster Unionist Coalition so determined to prevent that being included on the ballot paper? Of course, its objective was to embarrass Alex Salmond by having only independence on the ballot paper in the belief he, or rather the Yes campaign, could not achieve a Yes vote.

A recent Future for England report indicated that in a poll the English voted 34% for their own independence - roughly similar to the Scottish independence poll ratings.

So what would give the English figure a bigger boost than a Scottish No result, with the English being faced with subsidising the Jocks into perpetuity - and where would Scotland be if our No vote was followed by the English achieving their own independence?

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

WHAT a balanced and thoughtful response from Ian Bell to nonsense from south of the Border that friend has turned against friend and families have been divided over the issue of Scottish independence by some who should know better or are simply bent on making mischief ("Sorry to disappoint, but we are not mired in a hate-filled war", The Herald, August 28).

Most exchanges I have listened to have in the main been restrained, not hectoring or ill-natured, often diffused with some humour and at worst may end in agreeing to differ.

And whatever the outcome of the referendum I am sure we'll get on with it, with a bit of a moan at times as usual, but still good friends.

Wha's like us?

R Russell Smith,

96 Milton Road,

Kilbirnie.