I AM disappointed that Lord Lang and others chose to use a Lords debate to air their obsessive dislike of the idea of Scottish independence ("Scottish soldiers in British Army post-2014 would be mercenaries", The Herald, January 31).

I am particularly disappointed that they argued that the possibility of comradeship in arms between the Scots and other nationalities within the current UK would be diminished if Scotland became independent.

They seem to have overlooked the fact that during recent wars, we and the English have not only fought shoulder to shoulder with each other (and with the Welsh and the Northern Irish) but that we have also done so along with a great many Commonwealth citizens, with the citizens of various European states (the Poles were among our most successful and courageous fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain), and that we also fought shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, who some years previously had fought for and gained their political independence from the UK.

The comments made by those noble Lords seem to me to insult and diminish the significance of the contributions made to our common cause by all those separate independent and non-citizens of the British political union.

Hugh Noble,

Creachan,

Appin,

Argyll.

FORTY unelected, taxpayer-funded peers of the realm have spent six hours making speeches denigrating their country, its elected government and the democratic referendum its people are now embarked upon. One of those speakers, Conservative peer Lord Lang, has been widely condemned for saying that a vote for independence will "dishonour the sacrifices" of people who died fighting for Britain.

Lord Lang was defended in the House by Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke. The Baroness is probably better known as Helen Liddell, a Labour Party left-winger.

She said that Lord Lang "has been under attack from a Mr Keith Brown, a member of the Scottish National Party and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Frankly, that kind of attitude shames me as a Scot".

Her disrespectful reference to "a Mr Keith Brown" refers to the Scottish Government's Minister for Transport and Veterans. She also neglected to tell the noble lords that at the age of 19 Keith Brown served in the Royal Marines and took part in the Marines' legendary "yomp" across East Falkland, culminating in the attack on Two Sisters in which Mr Brown lost several comrades.

I think Mr Brown has more than earned the right to criticise Lord Lang and reflect the revulsion many felt at his remarks. Baroness Liddell has every right to feel ashamed, but only of herself and her new-found friends.

Kenneth McNeil,

Alva Place,

Lenzie.

THE claims from the Better Together camp get more ridiculous as each day passes. The latest assertion, from a former Scottish Secretary, Lord Forsyth, would have you believe that Scottish soldiers who continue to serve in the UK armed forces after independence would be regarded as mercenaries in a foreign country.

If one were to continue this wild line of thought, would it mean that all Scottish surgeons, doctors and other health professionals who remained in England after a Yes vote would be regarded like Medicine sans Frontiers and be expected to give freely of their skills to a needy foreign land?

I have yet to consider my stance in this great debate and would make a plea for more responsible input from members of the House of Commons and the Lords.

David Will,

24 Cauldstream Place,

Milngavie.

THE intemperate remarks by Lord Forsyth and Lord Lang in the recent one-sided debate in the House of Lords do an injustice to our armed services. In particular, Lord Forsyth's suggestion that Scots would become " mercenaries" in post-independence rUK armed services does not stack up.

There are thousands of Common­wealth citizens serving in the British armed services from countries such as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a number of African countries. They are certainly not regarded as mercenaries. The Ghurkas - Nepal not being a Commonwealth country - could technically be regarded as mercenaries, but I would warn Lord Forsyth not to be derogatory about their contribution to the defence of these islands.

Fergus Wood,

Ledard Farm, Kinlochard.

UNTIL there is evidence to the contrary, I will regard Mark Carney as a very capable and straight­forward Governor of the Bank of England who has just skilfully tiptoed in (and out) of the minefield of Scottish independence ("Salmond put under pressure by Carney warning", The Herald, January 30).

Yet those who choose to take his words as those of a completely independent commentator are surely being disingenuous. The Bank of England may be independent, but would a governor enter the political, as opposed to the purely financial, realm without reference to Downing Street? Incidentally, why have Unionists not demanded that the Bank of England be renamed "the Central Bank of the United Kingdom", which is how it describes itself on its website?

In this context, Mr Carney said that, when it came to implementing financial changes post-indepen­dence, he would act as a technocrat under political direction. His recent statements change nothing in the short term. The details would have to be hammered out post-independence between Holyrood and Westminster as part of wider negotiations.

In the BBC's recent Smoking Gun programme, Margo MacDonald recalled the "too wee, too poor" anti-independence mantra of the 1970s. Is this not simply resurfacing in a modern, more sophisticated guise? The No campaign arguments are relentlessly one-dimensional, and imply that people in Scotland are spongeing off the generosity of their neighbours - hardly an honourable situation.

Isobel Lindsay and other correspondents (Letters, January 31) challenge the rock-solid picture of the UK (and by implication, that of the rUK) economy which is endlessly held up by Better Together. Why doesn't Yes Scotland do the same? Is it for the same reasons that Mr Bonar (Letters, January 31) applies to its position over the monarchy?

Jim Morrison,

30 Pendicle Road,

Bearsden.