IT is a shame that your correspondent Alan Fitzpatrick (Letters, July 4) is so sceptical about the value of Citizens Assemblies, although widespread cynicism was inevitable when the announcement was made by Nicola "Once In A Generation" Sturgeon. These doubts can only have increased with the naked admission by Joanna Cherry MP that their specific and dedicated task will be to advance the cause of Scottish independence ("SNP’S Cherry fuels fears over Citizens Assembly", The Herald, July 3).

However, all is not lost. Maybe the idea will be salvaged if Citizens Assemblies are piloted in less contentious areas of public policy, for example, assisted dying, or the decriminalisation of drugs, or maybe even the division of school children on the grounds of their parents' religions. Or whether disruptive and provocative marches such as those held by All Under One Banner and the Orange Order have any place in modern Scotland.

Or would that be going too far?

Peter A Russell, Glasgow G13.

NICOLA Sturgeon tells us that Scotland is "heading inexorably towards independence". That will be why she is holding citizens' assemblies to advise her on the way forward for Scotland? By doing so, she clearly wants informed and unbiased opinions about her project, and will accept a verdict against separatism if that is what the Citizens Assembly advises.

Sorry, I don’t know how I could have said such a silly thing.

Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh EH14.

REBECCA McQuillan suggests a “UK Citizens Assembly” would let Scots “explain to their English friends what it really means to be Scottish” ("What Scotland really needs is a British Citizens Assembly", The Herald, July 5). But our Government has already explained this, and suggested many ways we could reach compromise to adapt England’s choices to Scotland’s needs. Nobody’s listening. Nobody’s interested. A UK Citizens’ Assembly would be no different.

It’s time we were governed by people who are interested in us because they live among us, and who have to take account of our needs because we elect them.

Mary McCabe, Glasgow G31.

THERE is something of the tragi-comical when the SNP is accused of a “drip-feed of anti-UK propaganda day in and day out”, by someone who outmatches that with his own regular torrent of rhetoric and invective. I refer to Keith Howell (Letters, July 5).

There is never anything substantive or consequential about his approach. For example, it can come as no surprise that the SNP regards devolution as a stepping stone towards independence – that is the target, not, as Mr Howell claims, the break-up of the UK. Goodness me, currently there are plenty of individuals within the Unionist cause who are streaks ahead of the SNP on that front. Regarding alleged SNP failures, these are replicated in spades in the public sector south of the Border – and we are thirled to what happens there.

Mr Howell repeats endlessly the flaws the SNP has, but never promotes any other cause, or any alternative party as an improvement. He does not realise that in criticising the SNP in the way he does, he demeans the integrity of the majority of Scots who troop out in election after election, to vote SNP in numbers unachievable by any other party. For example, at Westminster, the Scottish Conservatives have a desultory 13 MPs out of 59, while the SNP have 35 – nearly three times that number. The Tories are going nowhere if their sole purpose is to obsess about “independence” or “separation” – 28 times in a single electoral leaflet – as they did, with no reference whatsoever to what their vision is for Scotland under a Conservative regime. Perhaps Mr Howell could help them out with his own solutions to their dilemma. The problem he, and they, have is that this parish council of Holyrood (as Tony Blair described it) requires full independence – in the same way that factions in England are now claiming that Brexit delivers its independence. In what way does Mr Howell consider that Scotland would fit into the Union when that happens?

Douglas R Mayer, Currie.

TWO millionaires vying to be PM by out-Brexiting the other, elected by 100,000 or so white middle-class votes. Jeremy Hunt betrays he would reverse the fox hunting ban ("Hopefuls head north with vows to place Union at top of agenda", The Herald, July 5). Good news for the English landed gentry. As this is devolved in Scotland the Scottish landed folk will just have to wait, at least for the time being. After all neither cares that Scotland voted 62 per cent Remain so why make a distinction between English and Scottish foxes? Now at a Tory fundraiser in London, for £15,000, a rich Tory benefactor, wins a hunting trip to Scotland to shoot cage reared birds bred solely to let some gun-toting numpty shoot them ("Tories splash cash at ball", The Herald, July 5).

Speaking of numpties, Alexander Boris de Peffel Johson has pontificated that a pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde and he has pronounced that as Prime Minister he will crown himself saviour and minister for the Union. The choice of course is not ours to make and is truly the stuff of nightmares but I say, on balance, go for it Boris.

Christine Grahame,

SNP MSP, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.

THERESA May warns her successor not to trust Nicola Sturgeon. Hmm, is this the same person who promised “strong and stable” government?

Steve Barnet, Gargunnock.

I NOTE ALAN Simpson's article (“Bruce? There are far greater heroes”, The Herald, July 4).

Mr Simpson writes: “All this about a film charting events in 1314 and which is known by every Scottish primary school pupil.” This may be the case, but in my time no Scottish history was taught in Scottish schools; we were told about Magna Carta, but not the Declaration of Arbroath. Mind you, I appreciate that things have changed since I was in school, I left in 1952.

His comments seem dismissive of the story of Wallace and Bruce, yet England coveted Scotland and the English Crown held it by force of arms; England was always seeking to expand its boundaries and even claimed the throne of France – only ceding defeat when the French started to guillotine their Royalty.

It is worth noting that the war with England was fought on Scottish soil; the great men Mr Simpson talks of would not have existed in a Greater England.

Jim Lynch, Edinburgh.

Read more: Letters: SNP's talking shop is pointless