DAVID Cameron has said that "the British people" are his only "boss" ("Case for staying in the EU is the same as case for Union", The Herald, October 21).

Apart from the fact that he has no evidence regarding the opinions of the majority of the British people on Europe, immigration or anything else, this is a very dangerous way to formulate policy.

The trouble with David Cameron is that he is a shallow thinker whose political views lack any firm moral foundation. Instead, he is prepared to formulate and change government policy in response to populist opinion as reflected through the distorting prism of the tabloid press. So what happens when today's immigrants become tomorrow's equivalent of yesterday's Jews, blacks, homosexual' or whoever? Like "the German people" of the 1930s, the British people (however many or few "they" may be) are quite capable of identifying scapegoats to blame for our economic and other ills, while the real architects of our ills, supported by the vested interests of our right-wing tabloid press, are more than happy to encourage them.

The real answer to the poisonous political philosophy of Ukip and other parties of the far right is not to try to emulate them, but to oppose their ideas with the moral superior­ity of a well argued and firmly grounded political philosophy which does not bend in response to the ever-changing wind of public opinion.

As Iain Macwhirter pointed out ("Stance on the EU is bordering on the silly", The Herald, October 21), there was a time when the biggest advocates of free movement of people within the EU were Margaret Thatcher, John Major and the Tories. Sadly, the Scottish people (or at least 55 per cent of those who voted) are stuck with their choice of David Cameron and today's Tories for whom short-term political advantage will always take precedence over reason. Let us hope we are not eventually stuck with a misguided and xeno­phobic withdrawal from Europe as well.

Rev David A Collins,

25 Ballinard Gardens,

Broughty Ferry, Dundee.

THE latest comments by Nick Clegg are beneath contempt and demean both the Liberal Democrat leader himself and his party ("'Salmond like a Japanese soldier still fighting after war is over'", The Herald, October 21). Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have both stated publicly on several occasions that they fully accept the referendum result and the decision of the Scottish people. What else could they do?

But of course at the same time they are also perfectly entitled to continue to argue the case for Scotland's independence, which is what they and thousands of others have believed in for many years and is what the SNP stand for. After all, Mr Clegg's party have argued the case for home rule and a federal United Kingdom for the last 100 years, and have been rebuffed by the electorate at every General Election. But they have not given up the cause, so why should the SNP concede permanent defeat after just one vote?

Several recent contributors to the Letters Pages have also suggested that the referendum result was a "resounding victory" delivered by "a massive majority", and presumably believe the case for independence has been killed stone dead for all time, as no doubt Lord George Robertson would claim. But although a 55-45 per cent majority is certainly a clear result, it is by no stretch of the imagination an overwhelming one. Who knows how many No voters were influenced by the storming speeches of a back-bench Labour MP and the subsequent last minute "vow" to deliver something akin to Home Rule or devo-max which, as we are already seeing, was never remotely likely to be honoured and delivered by the Unionist parties at Westminster?

A major battle may have been won on September 18, but the "war of independence" is not yet over. If Ukip win 20 or more seats at next year's General Election and English votes in the referendum that will follow take the UK out of Europe against the clearly-expressed vote in Scotland, we will be into a whole new ball game.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Nick Clegg cannot understand why anyone, having been defeated in a referendum, would continue the struggle towards their goal.

Alex Salmond shows commitment to a cause, something that Mr Clegg clearly lacks. Mr Clegg cites his own failure to achieve change on the voting system. According to him, it was defeated, so that's it over; no more fighting for this lost cause .

Who would find this defeatism acceptable in a political leader? This attitude would explain the current polling position of the LibDems as few voters would place their faith in a party led by a man with all the resolve of a strand of wet spaghetti.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.

THERE have been complaints about the proposed allocation of places in the TV debates for next year's UK General Election. As this will be a UK election, the only basis on which to determine the allocation for UK debates is on the basis of UK votes at the 2010 General Election: Conservative (36.1 per cent), Labour (29.0 per cent), LibDem (23.0 per cent), Ukip (3.1 per cent), SNP (1.7 per cent), Green (0.9 per cent), with the total votes for the four separatist parties (Ukip, SNP, Green and Plaid Cymru) being 6.3 per cent.

As for the Scottish debates, the allocation should be based on the 2010 votes in Scotland: Labour (42.0 per cent), SNP (19.9 per cent), LibDem (18.9 per cent), Conservative (16.7 per cent), Ukip (0.7 per cent), Green (0.7 per cent).

Dr Alexander S Waugh,

1 Pantoch Gardens, Banchory.