DAVID Torrance's article is so lacking in logic, and at times argues against itself so much, that it is hard to know where to begin to offer a critique ("UK must rejuvenate itself in order to survive 21st century", The Herald, March 2).

He states in reference to the referendum debate that "the notion that the UK was somehow 'broken' irritated me the most". He then, in contradiction, goes on to say that the UK "must rejuvenate itself if it is to survive the 21st century or even the remainder of this decade". Why fix it if it ain't broke, Mr Torrance?

Of the lecturer James McEnaney's citing of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw's recent behaviour as "proof of how badly broken Britain really is" (something with which I agree), Mr Torrance comments that the argument makes little sense. His given reason is "it implies that greed and rule breaking is somehow an inescapable product of a particular constitutional arrangement, which is of course ridiculous".

It implies nothing of the sort. What the assertion states is quite clear. The behaviour of Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw is all too typical of a country in which we no longer consider such revelations unusual ... the scandal of politicians' expenses, the greed of the bankers, the growing gap between the haves and have-nots. It has nothing to do with "a particular constitutional arrangement"; everything to do with how people operate and are allowed to operate, within it.

It is the utter failure of the establishment to act to remedy such faults that points towards a "broken state".

Mr Torrance then states that "most of the phenomena nationalists cite as proof of Britain's brokenness exist in Scotland too" as if this is some sort of contradiction on the part of those who voted yes. Of course they exist in Scotland. Scotland is, after all, part of the United Kingdom. It would be absurd to believe they would not exist in every part of the UK.

The very fact that more than 1.6million people in Scotland voted to leave the UK appears to have escaped Mr Torrance's ability to link cause and effect. They did so because they see no will whatsoever within the UK to fix this broken society.

Perhaps if the correct action had been taken we wouldn't have come to the situation in which so many are utterly disillusioned.

Roger Graham,

23 Cullen Crescent, Inverkip.

DAVID Torrance would have done better to use his allotted space in The Herald to inform us in greater detail about the plight of the people of Haiti, and how they can be helped, rather than comparing it with the state of the United Kingdom

Mr Torrance suggests that the UK needs to rejuvenate itself, but the problems are fundamental and well beyond the alleviation of a cosmetic make-over. A discredited Parliamentary system, including an undemocratic House of Lords, astronomical bonuses for bankers and tax dodgers at one end of the spectrum, and food banks for the working poor at the other. Money and lives lost to foreign wars, one unwinnable, one illegal, which dominated the first decade and more of the 21st Century and which has led, at least in part, to acts of terrorism in the UK and beyond.

However, the people of the nations which comprise the United Kingdom are well known for their generosity to those around the world who have suffered terrible hardships from disasters, Haiti included. I for one would be more than happy to see a large portion of the billions of pounds that the UK is planning to splurge on new Trident weapons of mass destruction being used on projects which could provide additional help to those in need in Haiti and which put the focus on being constructive, not destructive.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.