ALEX Salmond's comments on President Putin were made in an interview on March 14, before Russian troops were ordered into Crimea ("Salmond row over praise for Putin deepens", The Herald, April 29).In fact Mr Salmond's comments were carefully balanced, noting Mr Putin's success in rebuilding Russia's economy and national pride, but also stating his serious reservations about other aspects of his semi-dictatorial rule and influence in foreign affairs such as Syria.

But as usual much of the media focused only on one comment made during the interview, which covered many other issues regarding Scotland's independence.

In his wide-ranging and balanced speech to academics and students at the Bruges College of Europe, Mr Salmond laid out in detail the many benefits both to Scotland and to Europe of Scotland remaining a member of the EU ("Salmond under fire over ban threat to EU fleets", The Herald, April 29). But once again the focus has been on what was just a single paragraph in the speech. In that, the First Minister pointed out that if an independent Scotland had to wait years to rejoin the European Union (or if a Scotland still within the UK was taken out of Europe after Mr Cameron's promised referen­dum), those 12 EU nations whose fishing fleets enjoy right of access to Scotland's territorial fishing waters would no longer have that entitle­ment. That is not a threat; it is merely stating the obvious under the provisions of international law.

Five million Scottish citizens have been full members of the European Union since it was the EEC 40 years ago. I still don't understand why the other 28 independent nations who are members would wish to reject an independent Scotland after a democratic referendum and make us wait for years of complicated negotiations, instead of welcoming us immediately as a continuing full member with all the benefits we would bring.

If the rules do not specifically provide for such a situation as a successor state, then I am sure the European Commission could find some way of making it happen if it wanted to. From the European viewpoint, there are many serious disadvantages to keeping us out, considering Scotland's strategic position, our extensive two-way trade with Europe, and the number of EU citizens and students who are welcomed in Scotland, if not in other parts of the UK.

When reporting on the vitally important matter of Scottish independence, it is frustrating and disappointing that much of the London-based media constantly seems to highlight only the negative arguments and headline selective statements taken out of context.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

"WE cannot tell whether ... he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to [his] great ... nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle... a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile ... a subtle personal magnetism."

Alex Salmond on Vladimir Putin, GQ magazine, March 2014? No. Winston Churchill on Adolf Hitler, Great Contemporaries, September 1937. Nobody on this occasion accused him of "a gross error of judgment".

On October 14, 1939, U47 crept under the Scapa Flow defences and sank the Royal Oak at anchor, with the loss of 786 souls. Churchill remarked: "What a feat of arms." Fortunately, Mr Chamberlain didn't sack his First Lord of the Admiralty for intemperate language after less than six weeks at the job.

The furore over Mr Salmond's so-called "contentious" remarks in GQ magazine is as predictable as it is facetious. No wonder our politicians are wary of giving interviewers straight answers. If we are going to restrict them to parroting a series of politically correct sound bites we will certainly elect the politicians we deserve.

Dr Hamish Maclaren,

1 Grays Loan,

Thornhill,

Stirling.

AS the elected representative of the Ukrainian diaspora in Scotland I have been overwhelmed by the reaction of the Ukrainians in Scotland to Alex Salmond's comments on Vladimir Putin.

They are variously insulted, dismayed and upset that a high-profile politician aspiring to some favoured position in the history of these freedom-loving isles should make poorly considered, erroneous and mistaken assessments and to express admiration of a dictatorial and criminal regime.

Even worse are the lame excuses given by his spokespersons over dates and events having already taken place in Crimea. The facts are that occupation of the Crimean parliament took place at the end of February followed by the unconsti­tutional illegal "referendum" on March 16, organised by a government which had been taken over at gunpoint by a party that gained only 4% of the vote in the 2012 election, and supported by Russian soldiers and gangs of men equipped and armed by Russia.

Mr Salmond's words can only give succour to the perpetrator of such undemocratic action. Ukrainians all over the world are appalled at the cynicism and manipulation with which the Russian government is fomenting civil unrest in Ukraine. Its aggression and destabilisation is being carried out with arms, deliberate provocations, and the ugliest campaign of disinformation that the world has seen since the end of the Cold War.

This is, of course, all just a smokescreen to detract from the heart of the matter. Russia is in breach of its obligations under the Budapest Memorandum, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for guarantees of territorial integrity and sovereignty. Russia, as a member of the Organ­isation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, is also violating the Helsinki Final Act; the United Nations Charter; its obligations to Ukraine under its 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership and the Russia-Ukraine 1997 Agreement on troop bases in Crimea.

Much more concrete assistance from the West will be needed to help Ukraine protect its borders; to reform and strengthen the rule of law; and to ensure that Ukraine's new, emerging democracy can create the inclusive, tolerant and transparent society that Ukrainians want. Now, more than ever, Ukraine needs action rather than words and dialogue must be from a position of strength.

Any weakness of response will be seen by President Putin and his closest ex-security services advisers as carte blanche to push into Ukraine and try to create a puppet state subservient to Russia rather than the will of the Ukrainian people. That would be a tragedy for the world, not just for Ukraine. Mr Salmond has to think before he speaks and he owes us a sincere apology.

Michael Ostapko,

Chairman of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain,

Scotland,

14 Royal Terrace,

Edinburgh.

IF Alex Salmond finds himself in the position of having to flex his muscles a la Putin by mobilising whatever Scottish navy he can muster in an attempt to impose a threatened ban on EU fishing fleets in Scottish waters, what is his plan to deal with the unintended consequence of having to support the continued existence of the Scottish farming industry, which will surely find that in retaliation the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies they receive will be withdrawn?

There is also the general question of whether if EU membership negotiations drag on such subsidies can be expected to be paid at all in the period between March 24, 2016 (the proposed date of independence after a Yes vote) and the date an independent Scotland achieves EU membership.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

MR Salmond has enjoyed his day in Bruges but he doesn't seem to realise that the real, serious objections to Scottish independence come not from Westminster but from Brussels. The grand European plan is for a United States of Europe and the last thing they need on their way to eventually meeting that objective is member states fragmenting.

They will not, of course, put it quite so bluntly as that. An independent Scotland will be more than welcome, but, and it is an insurmountable but, Scotland would have to accept the euro as its cur­rency and the Schengen Agreement, which would mean a hard border between Scotland and England.

From Brussels's standpoint, the purpose of this refusal is "pour discourager les autres" and is primarily aimed at Catalans, Basques and Flemings and other fractious minorities with illusions of grandeur. We Scots as well known for being thrawn, and more than capable of voting Yes no matter what the consequences might be. In my view that would be ill-advised.

For example; where would we find people of real quality and ability and with the technical and diplomatic skills to negotiate the plethora of financial and political hoops we would have to go through? The rest of the UK and Europe would run rings round us.

Alastair Reid,

1/1, 1 Dalreoch Place,

Dumbarton.