I NOTE that Nicola Sturgeon has tried to draw a distinction between the SNP and other nationalist movements, saying: “It doesn’t matter where you come from, if Scotland is your home and you live here and you feel you have a stake in the country, you are Scottish and you as much as say over the future of the country as I do. That is a civic, open, inclusive view of the world that is so far removed from you would rightly fear.”

Fine words, but she is doing nothing to rein in the growing number of her supporters who complain that it was people who were not born in Scotland who swung the 2014 referendum against the Yes vote. Some even suggest that there be “residency requirements” imposed before allowing non-ethnic Scots to vote in another referendum. Clearly many supporters of Scottish independence do not share the First Minister’s view of our future. The SNP must understand this and tackle it, or risk unleashing the sort of behaviours we see in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

Nationalism is always nationalism and it is in the ascendancy the world over. It is based on the premise that coming from a particular geographic location makes you superior to others. The SNP would, of course disagree with this but it keeps talking about how Scotland will be better, fairer and more inclusive as an independent country; its website even claims we’ll be “A Smarter Scotland”.

SNP news releases frame achievements in comparison to England or the UK as a whole (we’re better than they are) and they frame problems as being created or prolonged by Westminster.

If the SNP persist with its UK-Bad Tories-terrible strategy it’s difficult to see how it can, at the same time, claim to have a different kind of nationalism.

Michael Kent,

Rouken Glen Road,

Giffnock.

I WAS not surprised to read your front page article about Jo Swinson's election expenses (“MP Swinson under fire for ‘vanishing’ election costs”, The Herald, August 17). Our house received 14 pieces of election literature from the Liberal Democrats, so much so that I complained to one of the distributors, which made no difference and more arrived.

I am not a member of a political party and was considering voting for Ms Swinson until I received this deluge of mail, most of which was very negative in tone.

Tim Rhead,

33 Allander Road,

Milngavie.

I AGREE with Iain AD Mann (Letters, August 17) regarding the UK Government's negotiating position on leaving the European Union rapidly descending into farce.

Is it not time that Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove et al admitted that they were wrong in leading the Leave campaign and work towards having the “advisory” referendum declared null and void before the situation becomes worse?

We run the risk of becoming the laughing stock of the world.

Gordon W Smith,

21 Baronscourt Gardens, Paisley.

REGARDING the contributions from both Jim Meikle and Iain AD Mann (Letters, August 17): each appeared, on face value, to be on entirely different subjects. Mr Meikle's letter concerned racism and intolerance in Charlottesville and Mr Mann's the idiocy of the Brexit vote. However, I believe the subject matters are linked.

It strikes me that many people in the United Kingdom, including Brexit and non-Brexit voters will undoubtedly rightly condemn any notion of racism and intolerance in Charlottesville, but is the reality not that racism and intolerance towards others was also a major factor in the UK Brexit vote?

The desire of many voters (not all) to prevent free movement of our European neighbours from entering the UK and to prevent non-Europeans within the Calais camps from entering the UK could very easily also be likened to racism and intolerance.

John S Milligan,

86 Irvine Road,

Kilmarnock.

WILLIAM Hague, speaking to BBC 4’s Reflections with Peter Hennessy, stated Brexit could become “the greatest economic, diplomatic and constitutional muddle in the modern history of the UK”.

Yet, in trying to formulate a form of Brexit, because to the EU and Theresa May, Brexit means Brexit, Mr Hague offered no detailed pointers, let alone sector specifics on “free trade” in a Brexit context.

He ran through a number of muddled epithets – secure a good deal”, “strong free-trade agreement”, “very robust free-trade agreement”, “with the right attitude on migration, I think, it’s possible to reach the right solution on trade”.

In that he did not add anything of clarification and was as woolly as Theresa May in her utterance that no deal is better than a bad deal.

The UK has to spell out in detail its ideas, requests, but certainly not demands. Its already convoluted, muddled-thinking proposals, put forward by David Davis in his constructive ambiguity document, has been laughed off as fantasy (“PM accused of fantasy politics over plans for EU customs deal”, The Herald, August 15). The proposals for a border-no border with the Irish Republic just compounds the fankle the UK Government is in.

Mr Hague highlighted as problematic for the UK Government the now “emboldened EU negotiators”, but that is to be expected. The UK has walked away from the best deal on offer, namely the present arrangements as members within the single market and customs union.

It is therefore trying to “get back” into some form of relationship. So, it is not the classic two-nation bilateral agreement on trade. The EU does not need to “give”, the onus is on the UK to "offer” with third country status and a smaller population than the combined 27.

And the clock ticks on...

John Edgar,

4 Merrygreen Place,

Stewarton.

SO a “brute force cyber attack” has attempted to breach Holyrood's security and IT systems (“IT experts still bidding to halt cyber-attack on Holyrood”, The Herald, August 17). But why are the hackers bothering to try to disrupt proceedings? The SNP Government rarely bothers to pass legislation so there's little genuine business to interrupt. Plus we all know nothing as trifling as such large scale, professionally organised, highly determined cyber attacks will stop Nicola Sturgeon’s extensive tax-payer funded spin-doctor team churning out its daily diet of anti-UK rhetoric.

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road,

Edinburgh.