Scotland's history shows it to be one of the oldest civic nations

I was also puzzled by Mr Torrance's criticism of a recent speech in New York by the First Minister citing the latter's references to the pre-Union history of Scotland - the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and the culmination of centuries of independence with the 1707 Treaty of Union, when the church bells in Edinburgh rang out to the tune of Why Are You so Sad on Your Wedding Day? - as irrefutable evidence of the ethnic rather then the civic character of the SNP's nationalism.

What this unhistorical attitude fails to acknowledge is that for centuries before the Union Scotland was already a nation state with its own separate civil and ecclesiastical institution; its separate legal system, its separate local government system (the Convention of Royal Burghs), its separate and Presbyterian ecclesiastical jurisdiction, its own educational system (with three Scottish universities at a time when England only had two) and, of course, the old Scots Parliament, which cravenly voted itself out of existence despite the disapproval of the rioting mobs in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Why does Mr Torrance grandly dismiss all this as mere "ethnic nationalism"?

Surely the truth is that Scotland is one of the oldest civic nations in Europe, and in September we have the chance of a lifetime to vote to resume that status.

Ian O Bayne,

8 Clarence Drive,

Glasgow.

VERNON Coaker writes: "You can be proud to be Scottish, English or Welsh and a proud Brit at the same time. We don't have to choose between the two. Only Alex Salmond wants to force that choice on the people of Scotland" ("Only Better Together is running a positive referendum campaign", Agenda, The Herald April 14). I wonder whether since writing, Mr Coaker has had a chance to reflect on how wildly inaccurate this statement is?

Perhaps as an English MP he has had his attention elsewhere for the last two years, and will allow me to remind him how the referendum has come about. The SNP, Scotland's historic advocates of independence, were elected in 2011 by proportional representation and gained an overall majority; therefore Alex Salmond has a clear mandate to put this choice before the Scottish people. There is no question of him being able to "force" this or any other choice on the people of Scotland. It is successive Westminster parties who have been responsible for imposing unwelcome, unpopular and un-voted- for policies on Scotland for at least three decades, in the form of the poll tax, illegal wars and, most recently, the bedroom tax and severe cuts in the welfare state.

I have always valued both my British and Scottish identity and as a Labour supporter I did not vote for this Holyrood Government. Nevertheless I will be voting Yes in September, and Mr Coaker should take note, as there are many others just like me who long for genuine democracy in Scotland.

Mr Coaker aspires to be Defence Secretary in a party which has committed itself to £100bn of spending on weapons of mass destruction to be located in Scotland, with all of the UK's existing nukes. I could be mistaken, but I doubt whether this policy has the support of the majority of Scottish people, and a No vote in September could render Mr Coaker one of a long line of ministers "forcing" the Scots to accept unwelcome choices.

Alternatively, in the case of a Yes vote, he could be burdened with the task of negotiating the relocation of Trident to some other reluctant part of the UK. Careful what you wish for, Mr Coaker.

Maggie Milne,

42 Thomson Street,

Dundee.

I NOTE with interest your article on Scotland not taking any share of the UK's debt ("Refusing debt share 'is worth double oil revenue'", The Herald, April 15).

The SNP White Paper lays out a reasonable, constructive approach to negotiating a settlement with the UK, quite unlike the belligerent, bombastic approach of the No campaign. Should the Yes campaign wish to take a similar approach we would be treated to Scotland insisting on the break-up of the UK state; keeping Trident, since it's on Scotland's territory, and unilaterally decommissioning it; refusing to allow any English warships to be built on the Clyde; erecting a border to charge all English businesses access to Scottish markets.

Fortunately, the Yes campaign does not behave in this kind of ludicrous manner. I am impressed at how Yes Scotland has maintained its even-handedness in the face of outrageous and unsubstantiated claims by the No campaign.

Jim Dear,

82 Marketgate,

Arbroath.

I KEEP reading about "Scotland's share of the national debt". It should be pointed out that, as we helped to pay for them, Scotland would be entitled to its share of UK assets. Westminster is being, perhaps not surprisingly, very quiet about this, while spouting doom and gloom, not just for Scotland, but, apparently, the entire western world. Westminster cannot have it both ways. If we must pay our share of the debts, then we want our share of the assets, which are ours by right.

James Foy,

225 St Anthonys Road,

Newcastle upon Tyne.

BEFORE advising an independent Scotland on its possible arms sales policy William Durward (Letters, April 15) should recall some UK examples.

In 1997 the UK, despite a newly-declared Labour ethical foreign policy, sold Hawk jets to the Indonesian regime oppressing East Timor. In the late 1980s the Conservatives sold more than 100 Tornado jets plus Hawk trainers to Saudi Arabia. Subsequently there was the Al Yamamah investigation into alleged corruption in the achievement of these sales. The Serious Fraud Office's investigation was suppressed by Mr Blair, as the "UK's strategic interest came first". Thereafter 72 Eurofighter/Typhoons were ordered by Saudi Arabia.

Colin Campbell,

Braeside,

Shuttle Street,

Kilbarchan.

IN his recent conference speech to the SNP faithful, Alex Salmond repeated the canard, which independence supporters keep harping on about, that a particular reason for voting Yes is so that we (presumably all those on the Scottish electorate register) "get the government you vote for".

Looking at the voting statistics at the last Holyrood election, I believe the total of all the constituency votes cast was 1,989,222, of which the votes for the SNP totalled 902,915. Thus rudimentary arithmetic shows that 1,086,307 (that is, the majority of all the votes cast) opposed the SNP.

Ergo, I and 1,086,306 others in Scotland did not get the Government we voted for.

Alan Fitzpatrick,

10 Solomon's View,

Dunlop.

THERE has been much criticism of the negativity of the Better Together campaign so far, but for me the cohesion of the peoples of the United Kingdom working together is one of our undoubted strengths. While continued co-operation after a Yes vote is high on Alex Salmond's very long wish list, the act of separation can only be a very divisive act to the detriment of all the constituent parts of the Union.

I remain unconvinced that economic prosperity is ours if only we can break away from the United Kingdom. However, my principal reason for voting against independence comes down to the fundamental issue of identity. Newcastle and York are as much part of my country as Stirling or Inverness. The SNP want to take my country away from me and I greatly resent it.

If the Better Together campaigners wish to be successful, those politicians supporting the Union really do need to come together to bring forward a common plan of the further powers which will be devolved, instead of promoting their own disparate policies.

Alistair Macrae,

28 Elie Road,

West Craigs,

Blantyre.