Scottish soldiers serving abroad will still have a referendum vote

In any event, the "Romanian Big Issue seller in Glasgow or a French financial analyst in Edinburgh" will only have a referendum vote if registered, for which they must have a permanent address, which the former is likely to lack.

As for Scots who have gone abroad to work, I have an old school friend who lives in Los Angeles. When he asked me if he could get a vote in 2014, I said he could: "Come back and live here". While one should never say never, it seems unlikely he will come back to Scotland after spending the last 36 years in the US. However the vote goes in 2014, it will be of little interest to him directly. His interest, though considerable, is vicarious. Surely the franchise should be based on those who will be directly affected by the outcome of the referendum vote?

Why not add to this a bit of prejudice – that a change in polling times from noon to 3am would be necessary for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote without interfering with their lifestyles. I note a similar argument by another correspondent, Stephen Henson, a college lecturer (Letters, March 15). I too have met students of this type but it is wrong and unfair to characterise an entire population of 16 and 17-year-olds in this way.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

Service and Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the armed forces, or with Her Majesty's Government, who are registered to vote in Scotland are eligible to vote in the referendum. This is consistent with local election residential criteria and previous referendums.

The criterion of residence in Scotland is fundamental, and any attempt to extend or ignore it in a referendum would be challenged by other nations, as the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear.

I lived and worked for nine years in England, and voted in local and national elections in my English constituencies. As a resident in England in 1979, I took a keen interest in the Scottish referendum, but never felt or claimed entitlement to vote in it. I have Scottish-born family living in England and abroad – none of them feel an entitlement or claim a right to vote in 2014.

Richard Mowbray is an Englishman resident in Scotland, one who, I am sure, has made his full contribution to Scottish society, voted in elections and perhaps a previous referendum based on the existing residential criterion. I support and defend his right to do that – and comment on and take a position on Scotland's independence, and vote accordingly in 2014. I also support the same rights for the Romanian Big Issue seller in Glasgow, participating in an admirable social initiative to give him or her a foothold in Scottish economic activity, and the rights of the French financial analyst in Edinburgh, both of whose rights Mr Mowbray appears to challenge.

Scotland's wish to stand as an autonomous, independent nation state does not rely on a concept of Scotland based on romantic ideas of blood ties, empire, monarchy and valiant deaths on foreign fields. Scotland is an open, welcoming country, granting the right to full political participation in its democracy to all who chose to live, work and contribute, as Mr Mowbray has done.

Peter Curran,

1B Main Street,

Kirkliston, West Lothian.

I was delighted to read the report of UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond's flying visit to Rosyth and Edinburgh ("Hammond: Scots yards would not build UK ships", The Herald, March 15). His patronising remarks about an independent Scotland's military forces and defence requirements, and his threatening attitude towards Scots shipyard workers, must have added another few thousand Yes votes to the independence referendum.

Mr Hammond was happy to speculate in some detail about what Scotland's defence capability and requirements might be, and what attitude Scots serving in British armed forces might take to a Scottish defence force. When asked about his Government's plans to squander another £100 billion of taxpayers' money on replacing the Trident nuclear fleet at Faslane, he declined to comment on what he called "a hypothetical situation".

It seems obvious that when Scotland is no longer a part of a UK with an inclination to invade other sovereign countries in illegal and pointless wars and interfere in their internal politics, we will have fewer potential enemies and less need to defend ourselves against external attack or internal acts of terrorism. I urge David Cameron to keep sending other Cabinet ministers to Scotland to give us similar advice. Perhaps Chancellor George Osborne could come and lecture us on how lucky we are that he is willing to collect all our oil tax revenue and most of our other taxes each year, and then generously give some of it back to us as an annual grant. After all, that's what "better together" means, is it not?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I write as a former soldier to express my bewilderment at the Government and MoD decision to move the Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, from their permanent base in Edinburgh to Belfast.

The Battalion is at present serving on operations in Afghanistan and this news will have been an absolute hammer blow to all who are serving abroad. To make things worse, all the families will have been told this news while the husbands are abroad fighting the Taliban, so the opportunity to discuss this together has been denied.

By moving the battalion to Belfast, it will put them far away from their recruiting areas and make the exercise of recruitment much more difficult. The decision is an appalling example of bad management which is destined to shake morale and disillusion the battalion. When told of the decision in Afghanistan the men were apparently told they could opt for a transfer if they did not want to go to Ireland – what an appalling example of man management to be foisted on the battalion by the MoD.

When the infantry reorganisation was carried out in 2006 the rationale given was that changes would offer a more stable environment for families, so they could make plans and buy houses, wives could get jobs and children's education could be organised locally. It seems all this has been forgotten by the MoD and the basis on which the historic regiments were amalgamated has been overturned. This means families must now have a complete rethink; houses will have to be sold and jobs given up if the family is to accompany the battalion to Belfast. The education of children will be disrupted. Even if the family decide to stay in Edinburgh because the family have bought a house here, this will mean more separation and disruption. Coming just after a tour in Afghanistan, this is a particularly bitter pill to swallow.

There can be no logic in this decision as there is an English Battalion – 3 Rifles – in Redford Barracks and they apparently are being moved to Dreghorn which is currently occupied by the Royal Scots Borderers. Thus the MoD is upsetting and moving two battalions when any other commonsense decision would be to send 3 Rifles to Belfast. It seems as though common sense is in woefully short supply in the MoD.

Allan Alstead,(Commanded 1 KOS 1974-76 and 51 Highland Brigade 1984-87), 49 Moray Place, Edinburgh.

Join the Navy and see the Clyde. Well at least our allies in small countries such as Denmark, Norway, Portugal and the Czech Republic know what our Defence Secretary thinks of them and their (pocket-sized) military forces. How do they manage to recruit? More importantly, how does Denmark manage when its forces as a percentage of their size have sustained such considerable losses in Afghanistan?

Small countries do not suffer from a lack of patriotism or willingness to serve in their armed forces because they don't have aircraft carriers (neither does Britain at present), nuclear subs or far-flung military bases. The UK Government has consistently cut manpower and equipment for decades, yet still recruits. Is Mr Hammond suggesting the UK military must stay a certain size, have a certain type of toys for the boys or engage in high-profile adventures abroad just to keep recruits coming in (and the US happy)?

What he seems to be suggesting is that the UK continues and thinks it will continue to draw on Scottish personnel because if offers something the home country can't – that reminds one of the UK attitude to Nepal and the Gurkhas.

Professor William G Naphy,

1 Calsayseat Road, Aberdeen.