I NOTE with interest David Torrance’s column ("Why nationalism cannot be masked by a change of name”, The Herald, August 21). Let's for a change discuss British nationalism. The Conservative Party is a strongly British national party but sometimes, as Margaret Thatcher claimed, it is more of an English nationalist party. It also has deep imperialist attitudes in its DNA. Only two weeks ago the justification given for the extravagant white elephant aircraft carrier was that it would project British power across the globe. These attitudes are not confined to the Conservatives; you will also find them among sections of the Labour Party. Nor are they confined to Brexit supporters. The Tories have always used the Union Jack, Queen and country as synonymous with their right-wing ideology. Fortunately in Scotland national identity in a social, cultural and political context has been used to promote a more egalitarian and democratic ethos.

What does this tell us about what nationalism means? A little intellectual rigour around concepts would be helpful. If we had been nomadic, lone animals, civilisation could never have developed. But we were social animals and we settled and formed larger communities. Cultural development requires continuity over time, a core base and loyalty to people and place. This is part of the human condition but how it is used can be good or bad and it is not static. So let's focus on how we can use national identity for good.

The Nazis were racists not nationalists. They identified more with “Nordics” than they did with long-established sections of the people of Germany. Imperialists like the British state for more than three centuries denied the national rights of other peoples. Internationalists by definition are not anti-nationalists.

Scottish national identity has survived for a remarkably long time despite all the factors that ought to have undermined it. We should value this and use it as a way of improving our society and our democracy and welcome those who come to join us. This should be a matter of pride not something that requires an apology.

Isobel Lindsay,

9 Knocklear Place, Biggar.

DAVID Torrance seems to have missed the other big “nationalism” that exists in the UK: British nationalism. It exists in mainstream UK political parties, in the media, among people. It occurs repeatedly when Scottish independence is mooted, as in “I don’t want *my country* split up”, or the many references to Britishness and Great Britain by politicians and journalists: wars we have fought: blood spilled etc. There are also the Union flag-waving zealots, some of whom we saw in George Square and who also infest the online debate.

When we discuss the mote of Scottish nationalism, we should not be blinded by the British nationalist beam in our eyes.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

MICHAEL Kent (Letters, August 19) suggests that nationalism is “based on the premise that coming from a particular geographic location makes you superior to others”. However, it can equally well be argued that while there is a danger of this, it is not inevitable. Ghandi, for instance, argued that "violent nationalism, otherwise known as imperialism, is the curse. Non-violent nationalism is a necessary condition of civilised life."

Mr Kent’s error is to presume that when he hears the argument that independence would make Scotland “better, fairer and more inclusive”, not to say “smarter”, he presumes the comparator is England, and by becoming independent Scotland would in some sense be better than England. In fact, the comparator for a future independent Scotland would be Scotland now within the UK. In other words, “better, fairer and more inclusive than it is now”.

Of course, Mr Kent also argues that problems that beset Scotland – those things that prevent us being “better, fairer …”and so on just now - are framed “as being created or prolonged by Westminster”, that Westminster is always to blame for problems. Whether or not David Mundell’s claim that Holyrood since the passage of the most recent Scotland Act is “one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world” is true, the fact remains that more than 70 per cent of taxation decisions are not taken at Holyrood and that 80 per cent of welfare decisions are taken at Westminster. Perhaps Mr Kent would care to contemplate just how little influence our Parliament has over the location of the home port of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, and how much influence it had over Trident renewal? Being independent we could instead take all our own tax decisions to reflect our own interests and wishes, and could decide to provide a welfare system that would provide dignified support to those in need, in contrast to the bedroom tax and the rape clause forced on us by Westminster. We might also, I hope, show Trident the door.

Mr Kent, therefore, misses the point entirely with his conclusion that “if the SNP persists 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”. The fact is that Westminster, despite devolution, continues to exercise considerable control over Scotland, as those powers retained at Westminster – tax, welfare, defence and all the others – concern core matters of policy. We can therefore hardly ignore Westminster’s policies and their effect in any sensible discussion about our future.

Thus, arguing that an independent Scotland would be “better, fairer and more inclusive” does not require drawing comparison with England, but simply to point out that being independent would empower us to take significant decisions, such as tax and welfare, for ourselves in our own interest, and in so doing, by our own efforts, make Scotland “better, fairer and more inclusive”, not to say “smarter”, than it is under present arrangements.

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

SERIOUSLY, how dare Michael Kent suggest that the ridiculous notion that “coming from a particular geographical location makes you superior to others” has any connection with the Scottish independence movement or with the SNP? To claim, as of course we do, that Scotland will be “better, fairer and more inclusive as an independent country” does not mean that we consider ourselves to be finer people than the English (or than the Greeks, Kazakhs, Navajo or whoever): it means that when we have full control over the running of our country we will make a better job of it than the present and recent governments have made, and are making, of running the United Kingdom – and that, in all conscience, is a modest enough claim.

Similarly, calling attention to the fact (as it incontrovertibly is) that some features of civic life are more satisfactory in Scotland than in England is not tantamount to suggesting that “we’re better than they are”. The Scottish Government has every right to publicise its success, even as far as it goes, in countering the effects of Westminster policies, and thus to demonstrate that Scotland will be better off when its government’s every move is not constrained to include an element of damage limitation.

The cheap trick of smearing the Scottish independence movement with the nasty associations which the word “nationalism” has earned in some cases is not going to work. Voters have seen through it, and will not be fooled.

Derrick McClure.

4 Rosehill Terrace, Aberdeen.