Alex Gallagher (Letters, August 14) suggests I am "over-sensitive" about the emotive and vitriolic words employed by unionists when considering Scotland's independence. I can reassure him that I am merely amused at the lengths to which unionist politicians and others will go in an attempt to portray this in such a negative light and thereby cause unnecessary fear. Such insults abounded in the many fruitless visits of Westminster politicians during the Scottish election in May 2007.

Alex Gallagher (Letters, August 14) suggests I am "over-sensitive" about the emotive and vitriolic words employed by unionists when considering Scotland's independence. I can reassure him that I am merely amused at the lengths to which unionist politicians and others will go in an attempt to portray this in such a negative light and thereby cause unnecessary fear. Such insults abounded in the many fruitless visits of Westminster politicians during the Scottish election in May 2007.

The SNP does promote an independent Scotland, but by "velvet" painless separation rather than Mr Gallagher's "painful divorce", something no-one would want.

As to dubbing Tony Blair a war criminal: I seem to recall that one of the first people to use this apt description was in fact the former senior Labour MP Tam Dalyell. The SNP and many others, having considered the illegal invasion of a sovereign state by his government in collusion with the discredited Bush regime, on completely false grounds, and the appalling consequences, have every reason to agree with Mr Dalyell. My moral judgment remains intact.
Nigel Dewar Gibb, Glasgow.

I did try hard, but who could fail to rise to the bait, with the gallus Gallagher and the patronising Paxman in the same issue of The Herald?

First to Alex Gallagher, the Labour laird o' Largs. He may disagree vehemently with Alex Salmond's nationalist policies, but that does not make Salmond either a weasel or a rogue. Such jibes are just pathetic playground stuff. But to describe Tony Blair as a war criminal is not an insult at all, merely a statement of fact.

Now to jeering Jeremy Paxman, the terror of television. He may be quite a competent TV interviewer, but a member of the literary cognoscenti he clearly is not. To describe Robert Burns's poetry as "sentimental doggerel" sadly reveals his lack of literary taste and discrimination.

In fact, Burns had a wide vocabulary of words, including many descriptive of people like Mr Paxman - coof, gawkie, gowk and vogie come immediately to mind.

So please give us more of Messrs Paxman and Gallagher. They are such an easy target for the grumpy old men of the letters page.
Iain A D Mann, Glasgow.

So, Jeremy Paxman assesses the poet Robert Burns as "no more than a king of sentimental doggerel" in his introduction to the new edition of the Chambers Dictionary. This prompts two questions.

First, why on earth was this particular media personality deemed by the publishers to be best qualified for the task of writing this introduction? Secondly, what qualifies this man to condemn the poetry of Scotland's greatest poet?

Mr Paxman, whose main claim to fame is a self-satisfied willingness to be extremely rude on television, was probably offered the opportunity to write the introduction because he could be counted upon to be controversial, thus gaining the dictionary valuable publicity.

He is, of course, the question master of University Challenge, regularly showing disapproval, if not contempt, when young students fail to provide answers. Mr Paxman seems pleased with his ability to make a sweeping statement about the huge body of work of a great poet but he is a gomeril, and a bigsie one at that.
Iain Hall, Scone, Perthshire.