SO now we have confirmation of what we have always known, namely, that the Queen intentionally intervened in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. David Cameron has confirmed on the BBC that he asked for the Queen's support ("Cameron: I lobbied Queen to back No on independence", The Herald, September 19) and soon afterwards she spoke to a "wellwisher" who immediately rushed over to the press pack to tell them that the Queen had said that voters should "think very carefully" before voting for independence.

This raises many questions. Why was this "wellwisher" not identified in the press when this would be standard practice for any journalist? Who was this person who disappeared immediately. What were her links to the Establishment? Would her identity have blown the scam wide open?

However on a constitutional basis how can we ever again believe in non-political, independent monarchy? This appears to be cast-iron proof that the monarchy is involved in political shenanigans. This must surely start a conversation about the status and indeed the merits of retaining or removing this unelected, very expensive lobbying group.

David Stubley, Prestwick.

IT is no surprise that the vacillating David Cameron asked the Queen to intervene in the Scottish referendum. The real disgrace was Mr Cameron allegedly asking foreign governments to interfere in Scotland, on his behalf. Imagine: asking Vladimir Putin (and others) to help slew a vote in a western democracy.

GR Weir, Ochiltree.

IT is a little odd to hear again the re-heated mock outrage from some in the independence movement about the Queen’s response to a well wisher outside Crathie Kirk in the days leading up to the 2014 independence referendum. Her hope that people “think very carefully about the future” is sound advice about any subject at anytime. To infer from this some advantage to the pro-UK side of the debate is a strange thought for independence supporters to have given that suggests they are concerned that too much thinking about the future is not good for the cause of separation.

Perhaps they are right, but either way, the Queen’s comment was fair and little different to saying “think carefully and make your own mind up”. Those who argue otherwise perhaps reveal they own inclination to have us all adopt their opinion rather than thinking for ourselves.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

DAVID Bone (Letters, September 18) is wrong to complain that Nicola Sturgeon seizes on any excuse to talk about a second independence referendum; the SNP manifesto in 2016 clearly stated that there would not be a second referendum, but that was before "the significant and material change of circumstance" which sees Scotland being forced out of the EU against our will.

I agree with Mr Bone that the Opposition parties in Scotland are "unbalanced and ineffectual"; they have nothing fresh to say, tied as they are to their Unionist bosses at Westminster, and they are up against an SNP Government which continues to deliver positive policies for Scotland. Nobody is suggesting perfection, but when Mr Bone writes about an "SNP-dominated Scotland" he should remember that the SNP is only dominant in Scotland because the voters have awarded it their trust, voting it into power for a third consecutive term at Holyrood and into first place at the EU elections last May.

As for "Scotland's sensible and stoic past", I believe I am correct in remembering that in the late 1960s when the very idea of a Scottish Parliament was ridiculed by most Unionists, that the amount of time Westminster devoted to purely Scottish affairs was 23 hours per year. With the SNP as the third-largest party at Westminster these days are in the past and in the past they must remain; Scotland has come a long way with the SNP, and the winning post is in sight.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

Read more: David Cameron secretly asked the Queen to back the Union in the 2014 Scottish independence campaign