Sinister centralism or sensible at centre?

I AM not at all enthusiastic about Brian Monteith’s brand of Conservatism but I must admit I agree with much of what he says (“Sinister centralism at home in SNP”, 31 October). The Nationalists, the cybernats in particular, take themselves far too seriously (“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity”, Yeats).

If they do not stop being so grossly intolerant of the slightest hint of challenge, or even of questioning in good faith, citizens will not vote for or against independence as such; a crucial number, especially of “don’t-knows”, will end up voting against the SNP.

Their supporters also have a very bad habit of not responding to, and even distorting, the central points one was making.

John Milne

Ardgowan Drive

Uddingston

Professor Anthony Trewavas (Letters, 31 October) goes to some length – with impressive research in support – to show that the UK is not as unequal a society as Gerry Hassan claims (Perspective, 29 October).

Most Scots would prefer the evidence of their own eyes and experience to the professor’s statistics.

Hassan’s “11 reasons…for independence” was a first-class, objective setting out of the “why not?” case.

As he says, “the argument between the Union and independence has to acknowledge nuance and subtlety”, gifts unknown to such as Dr Michael Kelly (Perspective, 29 October) and Ian Davidson MP, whose bilious hatred of the SNP and their own Union-olatry have now taken them beyond the pale.

Keep it up, chaps – you are deep into counterproductive territory, and fair-minded Scots will recoil from such unpleasant fear-mongering.

David Roche

Hill House

Coupar Angus