DAVID Torrance adroitly lances the historicised "anti-Tory" Scottish nationalism which seems to be in evidence in the referendum debate ("Real reason for sovereignty is lost in anti-Tory rhetoric", The Herald, December 2).

It would doubtless be an error to reify the left-leaning political inclinations of the Scottish electorate in the manner he describes. Politics is indeed too fluid and contingent a basis upon which to found a state. However, the Scottish independence White Paper does not rely on the kind of political "difference" which can be debunked by adducing the convergence of opinion before 1977 or by projecting the future concordance of Scottish and rest of the UK (rUK) voters at the General Election of 2015.

The objective of Scottish independence continues to be to consecrate the people who live in Scotland as a source of (enlarged but not exclusive) political authority.

The White Paper defines the Scottish people territorially (those who live and work in Scotland), not by its fleeting political or cultural attributes at any given moment.

Despite the territorial basis of the Scottish people, the politics of the last 35 years, and the Scottish "anti-Tory" register to which they have given rise, matter in a specific sense. The much-vaunted aversion to the Conservative Party is of significance as an indication or portent of a distinct political community. During this period, the rhetoric which impugned the merits of Conservative policy was eclipsed by that which disputed the legitimacy of Conservative government that had failed to receive the approbation of the Scottish people.

By stipulating the assent of those who live in Scotland as a paramount condition of government, the White Paper remains, in principle, unconcerned by whether or not Scottish opinion coincides with that of the rest of the UK. Far from being the mere sublimation of opposition to a transient "Tory-led" Government, the independence White Paper transcends the vicissitudes of electoral politics.

Alastair MacIver,

South Gillsland Road, Edinburgh.

ONE of the core fallacies of the SNP's paper on independence is expressed in the introductory remarks. It is that "being independent means we will have a government that we choose". That isn't quite how representative democracies work.

The SNP performed exceptionally well at the 2011 Scottish election, but still achieved only 45% of the votes on a 50% turnout. In other words, the party was positively chosen by less than a quarter of the Scottish electorate. The majority of those who voted didn't get the government they wanted.

Of course the same fallacy is trotted out by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who claim that the electorate voted for a Coalition at Westminster. Voters didn't; they voted for a Tory or Labour or Liberal Democrat government and it was the politicians who decided there would be a coalition. It's hard to see how else things can be done with an electorate of millions, but the fact remains that, in a pluralist democracy, the majority of voters at elections don't get the government they want.

The SNP pretends there's an entity called The Scottish People that speaks with one voice. There isn't. Fortunately, Scotland is a diverse country of many voices, and the strength of various groupings varies over the years. In the 1950s, Scotland was staunchly Tory; I hope it never will be again, but who knows?

A word that isn't heard so often these days is subsidiarity; that's the principle that a matter ought to be decided at the most local level possible, the level of government that most accurately reflects the will of those affected by the decision. With Scotland's distinct education system, it's right that education matters are decided at Holyrood. When it comes to currency, it's also right that decisions on interest rates and so on are made by the UK's central bank; even the SNP acknowledges that. And all the nations of the UK have very similar interests in defence and foreign affairs, so it's right that those areas are decided at UK level, or indeed sometimes now at EU level. The distribution of powers among local government, Holyrood, Westminster and Brussels isn't perfect, but it works well and we make radical changes at our peril.

Doug Maughan,

52 Menteith View, Dunblane.

THE letter from Professor Coggins and Dr Harkness on university research funding (November 30) came as a disappointment, as I was hopeful that a Scottish Government under independence would have an internationalist and collaborative approach to this very important role of our universities. So I read the appropriate chapter in the White Paper (Chapter 5) and the associated questions (246 to 253). How your two correspondents came to the conclusion that what was proposed would lead to Scotland turning inwards on itself regarding research in our universities beats me - it proposes nothing of the sort.

In Chapter 5 and elsewhere in the document there are many references to collaborative arrangements for research funding and to the development of international research links, exemplified by this quote: "The best research operates across boundaries, be they disciplinary, institutional or nation state. We recognise and will continue to support collaborations at a range of spatial scales - continuing to participate in existing collaborations that work well while seeking to extend our global reach as an independent country." There is nothing in that about "building barriers", as claimed by your correspondents - quite the opposite. Clearly there is some uncertainty and concern regarding what arrangements will be put in place regarding research funding in an independent Scotland, but given that the resources will continue to be disbursed on the basis of academic excellence then Scottish universities have nothing to fear.

Dr Bill Stewart,

Senior University Teacher, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow.