I FIND it very strange that we could be asked to raise £100m to buy old masters for the nation. In the 21st century, can we not make an identical digital copy of these works, get authentic frames made in Scotland, and hang copies in museums all over the country?

I have been restoring old photos with excellent computer programmes which produce identical copies, and it is easy to restore faded images, bring out the original colours, enlarge and see details invisible to the ordinary view. These digital copies could be displayed in many different ways - for example, to show brush strokes, changes, hidden images and so on, and could be shown on a variety of different screens. Insurance, security and upkeep costs would, of course, be greatly reduced, and many more ordinary people could then enjoy these great works of art freely and openly. The ultra-rich owners could take away their originals and lock them up in their castles and mansions to enjoy in private.

I do not know the legalities of making such copies, but if the duke tried and was able to prevent this, he would gain a reputation for being selfish and greedy.

In any case, he should be aware of Carnegie's dictum that a rich man who dies wealthy is really a poor failure of a human being. Therefore, if he would like to be remembered as a great public benefactor, now is the time for him to donate his collection to the nation.

If anyone is misguided enough to start a public petition to buy these paintings, I certainly will not be wasting my money on yet another example of economic insanity, and I hope that our government is not conned into such a scheme. In what is shaping up to be a major and lengthy recession, we cannot afford to spend our dwindling resources on expensive luxuries (or on other monstrous follies like Trident, aircraft carriers and ID schemes).

Dr A Y Allan, Bridge of Allan

Surely the commonsense answer to the retention of these two old masters by the nation would be for the Treasury to offer the Duke of Sutherland a deal whereby it would offset an agreed amount against death duty on his eventual demise. This would have the advantage of the country assuming ownership of the paintings, without further damaging an already stretched budget, or a frantic campaign to raise funds by private donation. It would also leave the inherited value of the duke's estate unaffected at the end of his life.

Douglas Cardow, Maybole

What we spend money on as a society shows what we value. If the "great and good" say we must spend £100m for paintings because they are indeed magnificent achievements, so be it.

But I think we should spend at least comparable amounts on progress. Just as more than two centuries ago a government prize of £20,000 led to the development of a way to measure longitude, making ocean travel far easier, and an X prize of $10m was enough to stimulate development of Spaceship One and Virgin Galactic experts, say that an X prize of £280m ($500m) would be enough to produce a private enterprise reusable shuttle able to fly us to orbit at a price comparable to flying to Australia. Surely the value to the human spirit alone of becoming a spacegoing civilisation is worth much more than a couple of paintings?

Reaching for the Moon once meant seeking an unattainable goal. Have we declined so far that now, when it is attainable, we are so fearful of innovation that we turn away?

Neil Craig, Glasgow