DAVID Torrance may be correct in his assertion that there is a lack of doubt displayed by the highest-profile protagonists in both camps ("The avoidance of doubt and a lack of candour in Yes camp", The Herald, May 5).

Those not involved in the media campaigns, however, are only too aware of the uncertainty that may face us.

But there is one major distinguish­ing feature between the doubt experienced by the respective camps and that is evidence.

Despite the evidence that the Union has offered us a fatally flawed economic and political framework in which Scotland has fared badly, the Better Together campaigners still wish to cast doubt over the prospect that an independent Scotland might, just might, make a better fist of it on its own. Let the Better Together campaign produce as evidence one single period of five continuous years (not in a run-up to war) where Scot­land has thrived under Westminster rule.

I believe any jury would throw the Better Together case out in an instant on the basis of reasonable doubt.

And, yes, there is doubt as to how an independent Scotland might fare in the wider world, but those in the Yes camp can look at the evidence of the Nordic model and look forward with eager anticipation as to how those who make Scotland their home can shape this country. They look at the evidence of similar independent Western nations and say: let us grasp the opportunities that Independence will create.

The Yes camp sees the doubt surrounding independence as an opportunity. The No camp can only verbalise that doubt in the context of fear.

David Torrance talks as if doubt is a one-way street and that only a Yes vote is a vote for uncertainty.

But what about the doubt if we remain part of the UK? Will we still be a member of the EU? If not, what will happen to our currency and our economy? How many seats will Middle England afford Ukip (they will certainly get none in Scotland)? Will they be the king-makers in the next Westminster government? Will we have a Labour, Tory or hung or coalition government? How will this impact on Scotland? What about the promises we have heard before but which never materialise when Scot­land rattles the chains of indepen­dence? What would a Better Together Scotland look like? Same old, same old?

The onus of responsibility to address any doubts over the future of Scotland lies with the proponents of the No campaign. They have had 300 years or so to prove themselves but still so much doubt exists over their arguments.

William Thomson,

25 Lithgow Place,

Denny.

DESPITE my own long-standing SNP membership I am prepared to concede that there is some validity in David Torrance's critique of First Minister Alex Salmond's response to the furore caused by his qualified approval of Vladimir Putin in a recent interview conducted by the former Labour spin-doctor in the Blair administration, Alastair Campbell.

At the same time I am in no doubt that the salience of this issue has been grossly exaggerated by his Better Together opponents at Holyrood as a means of diverting attention from the central issue at stake in the independence referendum.

After all, in a sense it doesn't really matter what Alex Salmond thinks of Vladimir Putin, especially as his views will have no impact on the outcome of the tragic events now unfolding in Ukraine. Indeed, the same comment might equally well apply to the presumably contrasting views of such supposed leaders of the so-called free world as Prime Minister David Cameron, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, and even US President Barack Obama.

Moreover, in the context of the referendum campaign the First Minister's opinion of Mr Putin is irrelevant, since we are not being asked to endorse it on the ballot paper in September.

We have to focus instead on the question of whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. Concentrate, class.

Ian O Bayne,

8 Clarence Drive,

Glasgow.

SOME time ago I wrote to these pages to point out the fatal flaw in the way in which the case for independence is being argued - that is, that those doing so are offering a prospectus with no downside: a sure and safe bet such as the world has never seen before. This point has now been put much better by David Torrance .

In contrast, the No campaign is deliberately putting its cards on the table, not denying that Scotland could be an independent country, but pointing out how we are much better together as part of the UK. The contrast in intellectual honesty is striking.

As Bertrand Russell (no relation: his lot were from Bedford, mine from Brentford) said: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Herald readers will be able to work out which is which, just as Scots are too canny to be taken in by anyone offering a one-way bet.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill, Glasgow.