I AM bemused by Professor Hugh Pennington's contribution to the independence debate ("It is so important that our higher education remains part of the UK", Herald Agenda, November 4).

He extols the virtues of spreading the costs of academic research over 60 million people but ignores the obvious corollary that awards also must be spread over the entire UK. He describes Scotland's share of UK research funding as dispropor­tionate, but states elsewhere that it is awarded solely on the basis of excellence, through competitive peer review. He is very exercised about borders, which he fears may become barriers, but he acknowledges the strength of cross-border co-operation between the separate and differing systems of higher education already in existence in the UK. And he seems to believe that a free movement of researchers and ideas within Britain is possible only with a unified UK labour market.

The good news for Professor Pennington and the alarmed members of Academics Together is that an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would continue to co-operate and to collaborate in research, nationally and internationally, much as they do today. Emails would still be sent, telephones would still work, conferences would still take place, articles in journals would still be written. Academic researchers would contact each other, ask for advice, share findings, agree or disagree with each other, and apply for jobs in each other's country. Research funding would continue, and might even increase. After all, as Prof Pennington knows, money follows excellence, and success always attracts sponsorship and investment.

Is it too much to expect that someone who regards the contrib­ution of Scots in science and medicine as outstanding and inspirational might also view the prospect of an independent Scotland with a quiet confidence in the ability of the country he has worked in for 46 years to govern itself and order its affairs successfully?

Dr Elsa Hamilton,

79 Finlay Rise,

Milngavie.

The Yes campaign seems to be responding to the wise and measured intervention of Professor Hugh Pennington by putting out not one, but three spoilers: the statement of Sir Charles Gray ("Labour stalwart declares support for independent Scotland", The Herald, November 4) and of those of Cailean Gallagher ("Why, as a Labour Party member, I support independence for Scotland", Herald Agenda, November 5) and John Black (Letters, November 5). They must be rattled.

In the case of Professor Black, his letter may spark a debate between academics concerning the merits of peer review systems. From a less erudite point of view, we might deduce that he appears to have been promised unlimited public funding for unassessed projects with no accountability. This may be research scientist heaven, but the rest of us may wonder how it would ensure value for money to the taxpayer. It is also noteworthy that he cites the case of Sir Alexander Fleming and penicillin. This discovery was of course made in St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, and is a great example of research by a Scot having been nurtured by its UK context.

In the case of Sir Charles Gray, it is easy to see why he would like to see Scotland as a Greater Strathclyde Region, although it is doubtful that it is a view shared by most Scots, when there was little or no enthusiasm from any political party to save the regions back in 1995. To Cailean Gallagher, it can be pointed out that health, employment and education and the rest of the ills of Shettleston which he describes are all devolved issues, and if he believes that independence will offer further levers to deal with them he is deluded.

After all, spending and borrowing will be constrained within a currency union (if Scotland is admitted); trade and labour market policy will be constrained by the EU (if Scotland is admitted); and defence policy will be constrained by Nato (if Scotland is admitted). If Cailean Gallagher is disappointed with progress in a Labour party career of a whole seven years, a lifetime in independent Scotland will be much worse.

Peter Russell,

87 Munro Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow.

YOUR report on the decision by American authorities to lift the ban on Scotch beef imports ("Scotch beef back on menu as US lifts ban", The Herald, November 5) reminds me of one of the many "Union dividends" rendered to Scotland by Tony Blair when the BSE crisis was raging in 2002.

He was approached by Lionel Jospin, the French Prime Minister, who offered to lift the ban on Scottish beef in France (since Scots cattle were not fed on remnants of other animals). France was then our biggest overseas market for beef. Mr Blair refused to accept this offer, obviously feeling some bizarre notion that we were "better together" in being shut out of European markets. This incident condemned our export trade to a slump which lasted for years and needlessly damaged our farm exports.

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road, Lenzie.