The majority of Scots do not regard the UK as a pariah state

I am sure that most Scots reject this view of the UK as a pariah of the same type as apartheid South Africa, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or totalitarian Burma. In fact, we have every reason to be content and indeed proud of our country and its position in the world, for example through our international aid programme. And with regard to real pariah states, the record of the UK has included such achievements as resisting Nazi Germany and more recently helping to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, to the undoubted benefit of all women and most men in that country.

Those who advocate a Yes vote may try to hide it, but they obviously cannot wholly conceal their loathing of the United Kingdom, which comes out in the language which they use. Thankfully, it seems unlikely that these exaggerated expressions of their hatred will find any popular resonance in the referendum debate.

Peter A Russell,

87 Munro Road,

Jordanhill,

Glasgow.

EXPERIENCE has taught me that it is useful to read a report before I choose to pass comment on it. Alas, it appears that Alex Orr does not seem to be of the same view, if his comments on the UK Government's recent security paper are anything to go by. Mr Orr appears to claim that the UK is culpable for the terrorist attacks inflicted upon it as we have, in his own words, become a "pariah state". I find this statement tasteless, but it also seems to demonstrate that Mr Orr has not read the report of which he is so scathing. For if he had, he would have read examples of significant instances of terrorism in small European countries such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Moreover, a man arrested on suspicion of committing acts of terrorism in Stockholm was found to have conducted much of the operational planning while resident in Glasgow.

Are we to conclude, therefore, that such acts of terrorism were the result of the Nordic countries (which the nationalists seem to idolise) being pariah states? I am sure that Mr Orr would not, but I'm afraid that would reveal double standards on this issue.

Mr Orr also shows ignorance of how intelligence is actually shared. He states that the UK would wish to "pull up the drawbridge" and cease to share information with a separate Scotland. That is a gross misinter­pretation of what the paper actually stated. Within the "Five-eyes" group of intelligence sharing nations, intelligence passed from one member to another cannot be shared with a third party without the originator's consent. The decision on whether the UK could share, for example, US intelligence with an independent Scotland would be a decision for the American government to take.

Colin Taylor,

5/9 Powderhall Brae,

Edinburgh.

I AM appalled at the negative attitude of Home Secretary Theresa May to sharing intelligence information with the security services of an independent Scotland ("Intelligence club 'could snub Yes vote Scotland'", The Herald, October 30). As a UK minister she is entitled to be opposed to the concept of an independent Scotland but, in the event of it happening, she surely has to endorse the closest intelligence co-operation between the two emerging countries, not least in the interests of those south of the Border. To suggest that a neighbour sharing both a common border and membership of Nato should have a lower co-operative intelligence rating than New Zealand, which is 12,000 miles away, is not a member of Nato, and has a population smaller than Scotland is both crass and insulting.

Fergus Wood,

Ledard Farm,

Kinlochard.

I WAS surprised to read Harry Reid describing the 40% turnout rule as "cynical" ("Devolution is the fly in the ointment for Yes camp", The Herald, October 29). In Denmark all their referendums use the 40% rule. I thought SNP supporters were meant to like the rules of Borgen - or do we only like the TV programme and not the reality of their political system?

Thomas McCafferty,

Drum Brae South,

Edinburgh.