It is David Stevenson (August 23) who is trotting out a line. The reality is that no-one would spend umpteen millions on a weapons system that could only operate from one place. When even some top brass tell us that they do not believe Trident is a good way to spend the defence budget in these post-Cold War times, it is a good time to unite together, in England and Scotland, and try to get rid of it. We may not succeed, but if it should turn out that a Scottish government removes it from the Clyde, the fact remains we will not be one bit safer. This is true whether or not Labour at Westminster is in opposition, and regardless of which MPs are or are not members of CND.

I cannot expect Cal Waterson to be familiar with my personal history, but if he wants a conversation he should avoid throwing around accusations based on no evidence. I do not include in matters handled best at UK level the decision to invade Iraq. In fact, I marched against it. I resigned from my front-bench post over the first Iraq war. In my letter that provoked his ire I did give an example, but it was cut out. That was the six years from 1939 to 1945.

What we who are not Nationalists are trying to get through to them is that any one policy decision can be wrong-headed, but in the broad sweep of our joint 300-year history we have, on the whole, been better off together than apart.

Cal Waterson even believes that an independent Scotland will bring us a modicum of socialism. That, no doubt, is why Brian Souter is funding the SNP so lavishly. But thanks for reminding me - it was Labour that fought and won against the Tory attack on gays. It was Labour that fought for equal representation for women in the Scottish Parliament - since diminished thanks to lack of SNP commitment. It has been this Labour government that has hugely increased spending on education. Mr Waterson should examine Mr Salmond's economic and fiscal plans more attentively before he believes the rhetoric aimed at winning seats in Clydeside.

As for Iain A D Mann, I agree with him about nuclear power, but I would despair if I thought that many people confused it with nuclear weapons. As for fishermen and farmers, the matters he raised are policy issues, on which people within Scotland itself have different views. They are not constitutional matters.

Can he really believe that, in an independent Scotland, no government will ever displease farmers, fishermen or any other economic interest? I'm beginning to think it's Brigadoon these people believe in, not real life.

Maria Fyfe, 10 Ascot Avenue, Glasgow.

Writer Ian Rankin has gone on record as saying that the "national conversation" on Scotland's constitutional future made the country an "exciting place". By preferring "conversation" to "debate", Alex Salmond, to his credit, has endeavoured to raise the issue of "where do we as a society go from here" above party politics. If it has caused a "buzz", as Ian Rankin suggests, he will not be too unhappy.

But if the conversation is to be meaningful it is incumbent upon all of us to set aside party loyalty for the duration. Whether devolution blossoms into full nationhood has little to do with party politics. It is about how we Scots feel about ourselves. On the issue of devolution, politicians speak for themselves, and themselves only. Wendy Alexander should take note. It is arrogance to declare that a break from Westminster would be a disaster for the Scots without giving her reasons. Her defending of the status quo carries the risk of gradual ossification as the present becomes the past, dated and irrelevant to contemporary society. Ms Alexander's seeming stridency will do little to endear herself to the Scottish public. Her diehard supporters, perhaps, but alas a diminishing strand of the labour movement as more of them succumb to the reality of their own mortality.

Even in the relatively short period of devolution to date, the Westminster style of democracy looks increasingly jaded. Coalition government in Scotland has resulted in the emergence of a more broadly-based consensus on issues important to us. An intense sense of our common humanity has resulted in advances in healthcare, elderly care, concessionary travel and student fees. In these areas, England is playing catch-up.

Ian Innes, Belmont, 14 Fleurs Place, Elgin.

Harry Reid (August 23) does not believe referendums are compatible with representative democracy. I beg to differ. The Scottish Parliament is a modern law-making body comprised of elected representatives. There are constraints on its powers, and the approval of a higher authority (Westminster or the people) is required if MSPs or the Scottish government wish to expand those powers.

This is entirely as it should be. Elected representatives legislate where they are empowered to do so, but it should not ultimately be for them to decide what powers they have.

Unfortunately, centuries before any of us was born, the Westminster Parliament came to believe that it was somehow sovereign; that its members could legislate on any matter and alter their powers at will. The sustained attack on civil liberties for political profit which we are experiencing is a direct result of politicians seizing powers to themselves without regard for a higher authority: citizens.

Fundamental reform of our tattered and noxious constitution is essential if we are ever to have a true democracy in this country. Whether that comes about through independence or reform of Westminster does not matter greatly to me, but either way, it should not be for politicians to decide their own powers.

Referendums are an essential part of a healthy representative democracy.

Geraint Bevan, 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow.

In his interview with your political editor (August 20), the First Minister was disparaging of the Edinburgh trams project. Unbelievably, Alex Salmond appears to be blaming the chaos of the SNP budget on the support of the opposition parties for improved public transport schemes. This is typical spin. As he well knows, trams will be paid for from a completely different budget: capital expenditure, not revenue. The SNP government must accept that it has a duty to balance its roads policy with public transport investment, especially if it genuinely intends to meet its climate change targets. So stop spinning, Mr Salmond, some of us see right through you.

Tavish Scott MSP, The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh.