WE discussed in this slot some time ago the growing incidence of Americanisms in our language, which was irritating some of our readers. This week, let's turn our attention to another common bugbear: the incidence of Anglicisms.

The matter was raised recently by reader Carol Primrose, who fumed: "I was upset to find what I assumed to be a trustworthy newspaper furthering the dishonest claim by the RSPCA that it operates in Britain ... the RSPCA can only operate in England and Wales, it has no remit in Scotland, which is served by the Scottish SPCA." The offending statement appeared in a Herald Magazine preview of the Channel 5 show The Dog Rescuers, which contained the line that the RSPCA was "working to keep Britain's dogs safe".

Point taken. We are proud to be a Scottish national newspaper – we are of course the longest-running national newspaper in the world, as we boast on our front page every day – and we need to be on our guard against such inaccuracies.

The error was made, as it often is, in copy supplied by an agency, in this case the Press Association. PA, as it is popularly known, provides services to newspapers the length and breadth of Britain, and is not expected to fine-tune every article it transmits to take into account national differences or sensitivities. That is our job.

It is a task we approach with diligence. I would hope you would not read in The Herald about cases of arson taking place north of the Border, rather wilful or reckless fireraising. Similarly housebreaking, not burglary. PA also supplies copy for our regular On this day feature, which appears on this page. This may, for example, mention James I, whom we will refer to as James VI (unless, of course, the item is about the King of Scots who reigned from 1406 to 1437). We try to be sensitive to regnal numbers, which often raise the hackles of Herald readers. (PA also recently referred to the "Clydebank shipyard in Scotland"; Neil Bowman was among several readers who were exercised by this superfluity, and the phrase ought to have been excised.)

There are other pitfalls regularly to be avoided: we need to make the clear distinction between UK and Scottish ministers; we must ensure no one refers to a defendant in a Scottish court case; we should draw the distinction between Scottish charities, such as the National Trust for Scotland, and those that operate down south. There is also the issue of royal titles, which we have discussed previously.

Does all of this really matter? I would argue that it does. It is not a matter of nationality politics, no matter what proponents or opponents of independence might think. It is about serving two of the main masters in newspaper reporting, accuracy and clarity. Our readers expect, and deserve, no less.