I WAS disappointed to note that Dr Angus Macmillan (Letters, October 2) should consider the statistic that 62% of the population consider themselves "Scottish only" a disjunction, seemingly because of the fact that the No camp appears in polls to be winning the referendum debate.

I feel he constructs a false inference from the figure. The expression "Scottish only" would be chosen by someone who did not feel they were dual or mixed nationality such as a French Canadian might.

It is well recognised that anyone can interpret statistics to suit their own agenda. For example, the Scottish census in question also reveals that only 1.1% of the population can speak Gaelic. Could the current BBC Alba therefore ever represent best value? Should we now ask how much was spent per Gaelic speaker on the bi-lingual signs in our rail stations?

I believe that people naturally feel a strong affinity towards, and identify with, their place of birth. Scotland is a nation and has remained so all the time it has been part of the United Kingdom. Stating one is Scottish only is not necessarily a statement of political affiliation but of one's natural nationality.

There can be no absolutes on this issue, as political nationality within the UK has conveniently been a pluralist concept since the Union of 1707. Choice can be influenced by scale and circumstance. As a paradigm, although I was born in Greenock I would never dream of saying I was born in Inverclyde, which is the political district it is part of. When I am in England I tell people I am Scottish but if I am abroad I tell local people I am British. Several years ago I was in a restaurant in Spain and asked the chap at the next table, who also had a Scottish accent, where he was from. To my surprise, instead of saying "Glasgow" he said "Springburn". I find people always tend to be cosily parochial rather than party political when it comes to self-identity with the place they come from.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

Why do Ian Bell ("Census suggests that the Yes campaign is missing a trick", The Herald, September 28) and Dr Angus Macmillan spend so much time pondering over the "puzzle" of why so many people identify themselves as Scots but will not support independence?

Scotland has produced fine thinkers such as Adam Smith, David Hume and so on, but it is to England's excellent William of Ockham that we should turn for a solution to their bafflement, using the famous Occam's Razor, which states that the most simple explanation is the most likely to be true (unless proven otherwise.)

In this case, that most simple explanation is that although most people may feel Scottish and not British, they do not think that being citizens of the UK in any way hinders that identity. Therefore they do not feel that independence is necessary. This conclusion is of course in line with the most straightforward argument about independence, which is that most Scots do not want it.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill, Glasgow.

IN response to R Russell Smith (Letters, October 1) and his worry of being British and Scottish, surely if you can be Scottish without living in a Scottish state as he is at present, then it logically follows that he can be British without living in the UK state?

After all, surely being British does not rely on sharing a Prime Minister, in the personage of David Cameron?

The Norwegians or Swedes can perhaps help Mr Smith in that they are still Scandinavian while being independent nations. Therefore, after Scotland becomes independent in 2016, Mr Smith will still be Mr Smith and certainly be British and Scottish just as he is now.

Angus Brendan MacNeil,

SNP MP,

31 Bayhead, Stornoway.

M SMYTHE (Letters, October 2) makes the common mistake of confusing the all- party Yes campaign's position on various topics with that of the SNP.

On the BBC, the Yes campaign states that the future of broadcasting in Scotland will be for the people of Scotland to decide via the Scottish Government we elect in May 2016 and in subsequent elections.

However, I am sure that most agree that since the advent of devolution the BBC in Scotland is no longer fit for purpose.

After independence viewers and listeners will still get access to BBC London's output just as they do in Ireland, either via enhanced aerials or by existing cable or satellite platforms.

In August the First Minister explained that Westminster control of public service broadcasting in Scotland was out of date in this muti-channel digital age, and that even if Scots opted to remain in the Union, post-2014 control of Scotland's broadcasting should move north.

He went on to say that "an independent Scotland would build on the existing BBC Scotland infrastructure and staff to create a broadcaster fit for the new Scotland".

At the most momentous time in its history, BBC Scotland is set to lose up to 120 posts by 2017 in a push to reduce its budget by 16%. No wonder the output from the already vastly under-resourced outpost of the London organisation is pretty dreadful at times.

M Smythe's comments on loss of tourism after independence is nonsensical and we only have to look at Ireland.

A Scottish Broadcasting Service would create more choice, greater creativity and increased broadcasting jobs in Scotland, which is a positive vision rather than the "we're too wee, too stupid, too poor and too parochial" to do things for ourselves mindset of those opposed to independence for our nation.

Mary Thomas,

Watson Crescent, Edinburgh.

M SMYTHE expresses a concern that "the BBC does not give £3bn of its programmes for free to any country that does not pay the licence fee". In fact it does; on a range of platforms , including free-to-air satellite, all of the British channels available in Scotland are available throughout Ireland. Irish licence fee payers fund their own RTE which, along with Ireland's own commercial television, is available in addition to all of the channels Scottish viewers enjoy at present. There is therefore in Ireland more choice - not less - at no extra cost, and creating that increased choice sustains a larger production sector than we have here in Scotland.

Of course arrangements in the future for Scotland, which bear on an asset such as the BBC which we all own jointly, would be part of any post-referendum negotiation process as regards assets and liabilities, but it is surely one of the "fabled scare stories" to which M Smythe refers to suggest that we would be in a less advantageous position than Ireland, which left the UK a year or so before the BBC even came into being.

Ronan Cunning,

2d Pollokshields Square,

Glasgow.

YES Scotland, not being a political party, cannot have detailed policies on issues such as the future shape of broadcasting in an independent Scotland. I am hoping the soon-to-be-published White Paper will contain up to date proposals from the SNP. I agree it is a matter of concern for many people, and this is one of the many issues that would need to be resolved, in the event of independence, by the Scottish Government, following an election in 2016.

With respect, though, there are bigger issues, such as those eloquently described by Dr Angus Macmillan and John Jones (Letters, October 2) that should carry more weight.

Julian Smith,

3 Warrington Court, Limekilns, Fife.