THE late John Smith was a great man and a wonderful leader; a man who was always ready to embrace many different arguments, willing to learn, and calm and assured in his dealings with people from all walks of life and differing political persuasion.

I find it deeply offensive that David Cameron ("Cameron to recall Labour's John Smith in 'ordinary folk' jibe", The Herald, May 15) is using his memory to prop up a Better Together campaign which seems to consist of empty sound­bites, pronouncements which belittle Scots and, as George Osborne showed, has the ability to pluck figures from thin air, free of any hard evidence ("Osborne warns an independent Scotland would run out of cash", The Herald, May 15).

This is not the way a man of integrity such as Mr Smith would try to persuade people. In fact, given the pathetic posturings of a Labour Party hand-in-hand with a Coalition Government putting in place a disgraceful set of austerity meas­ures, with his legal training and love of well-constructed, evidence-based argument Mr Smith, who always wanted the best for his country, might well have decided that independence was indeed the way forward.

Dr Graeme Finnie,

Balgillo, Albert Street, Blairgowrie.

I HAVE no difficulty in endorsing Catherine MacLeod's assertion that Scots should pride themselves in "the hospitality and welcome" extended to visiting tourists ("Cameron's Scots visit should be welcomed", The Herald, May 15).

But Mr Cameron comes not as a tourist or visiting dignitary but as the leader of a government and party whose policies have been emphatically and consistently rejected by Scottish voters. It has been said that Scots is "an accent o' the mind". For all of the empathy, insight and understanding Mr Cameron has of our values, concerns and priorities, his grandfather might as well have been an Appalachian Indian.

Scott Rorison,

High Street, Dumbarton.

I CAN only agree with Catherine MacLeod when she says criticism of David Cameron visiting Scotland on the basis of his being English and a "Tory toff" is depressing. Perhaps she can make this point to her fellow pro-Union and Labour Party colleagues such as the MP for Glasgow South West, Ian Davidson, who, whilst commending the Prime Minister for his haircut, stated that the last thing the No campaign needed was a visit from a Tory toff from the Home Counties ("Alexander: Currency union is off the table", The Herald, May 8).

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens, Southall.

If Better Together's Alastair Darling is really being replaced by Douglas Alexander, it begs the question: why?

It surely cannot be the charisma factor; both would score on a par with Ed Miliband on their appeal to voters of any persuasion.

It cannot be on debating skills after Andrew Neil demolished Mr Alexander's woeful defence of Labour's £450 VAT attack on the Tories.

It cannot be on strategy, as Mr Alexander has a consistent record of losing campaigns in which he is involved (2007 and 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, David Miliband's leadership campaign, 2010, Michael Dukakis's US presidential campaign, 1988) .

It cannot be his eye for a winner (he supported Mr Dukakis against George W Bush, supported Gordon Brown against Tony Blair, supported David against Ed, and lost each time). It cannot be his fiery oratory, as a speak-your-weight-machine is more convincing.

It cannot be a panic move due to the decreasing gap in the polls. Can it?

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

IT is salutary to hear the big hitters of the British Government involving themselves in Scottish politics, not to address Scotland's internal problems - of which there are many - but to issue dire warnings about the consequences of allowing ourselves to be led astray by Alex Salmond. And on a day when the Chancellor again rules out a currency union - "no ifs, no buts" - Richard Mowbray (Letters, May 15) described Scotland's First Minister in terms of "the chippiness, bitterness and class warfare of the 1970s student socialist, now living a life of luxury at taxpayers' expense in Bute House".

In the Rob Reiner film The American President, the White House incumbent, President Andrew Shepherd, played by Michael Douglas, addresses the press corps with respect to his sinister political opponent, Bob Rumson (Richard Dreyfuss), who is running a smear campaign against the President. I paraphrase: "You've got a problem? Bob Rumson is not interested in solving your problem; he is interested in two things and two things only - making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."

Would it not be a craven act to allow ourselves to be governed by people who deal in the currency of fear and blame?

Dr Hamish Maclaren,

1 Grays Loan, Thornhill, Stirling.

YET another letter from a reader, Richard Mowbray in this case, mistakenly, I suspect deliberately, suggesting that the SNP and the burgeoning genuine grassroots Yes movement are one and the same thing.

I take issue with his statement that the SNP has lost every argument regarding independence and has failed because it cannot define a distinctive culture and is itself defined by its loathing of the English. Although I cannot comment on behalf of our governing party, as far as I am aware, Yes has not lost every argument, Yes is not really interested in defining any distinctive culture and Yes does not hate the English.

I would also go so far as to say Yes is winning more arguments than the No camp and will continue to do so as more and more people start to realise just how useless the bankrupt Westminster system is for Scotland, in so many ways.

Yes is not about "narrow" Scottish nationalism or the broader British nationalism of the Better Together camp, it's about self-determination and the ability to make our own decisions on all aspects of our lives.

Finally, as for the rest of the world asking in total bemusement: "Whatever for?" my experience continues to be an encouraging: "About time."

Lindsay Scott,

194 Thornhill Road, Falkirk.

I WONDER how many pensioners realise the impact a flat-rate pension of £160 per week from 2016, proposed by the SNP in the event of a Yes vote in September's referendum, would have. This would only apply to new pensioners from that date and all existing pensioners and those, like myself, who are 65 prior to 2016 will not receive this amount. In fact, we will probably by that time have about £120 a week at most, a staggering 25% less.

The Westminster Government is proposing something similar and both parliaments should reconsider their proposals or, hopefully, receive a deserved backlash once current pensioners experience the very real inequality proposed.

Gordon Blackwell,

10 Valeview Terrace, Glasgow.