How can Neil Oliver be divisive when he reflects majority view on independence?

I am at a loss to understand why your correspondent Peter Broughan (Letters, 4 October) considers Neil Oliver to be a divisive figure. Surely it cannot be on the basis that he is an avowed supporter of the Union given that the majority of our citizens (myself included) also support the Union? If this is indeed the reason, in what way is expressing the view of the majority considered to be divisive?

Although I am a unionist I had no objection to Alan Cumming, an SNP supporter, being appointed an NTS ambassador. Appointees should be chosen on the basis of skills and ability, not political affiliation.

Is it the case that only supporters of independence are now regarded as being acceptable to hold public office? If so it is a clear case of the Nationalist tail wagging the Unionist dog. KATHLEEN H MARSHALL Gilmerton Road, Edinburgh

I agree with much of what Martyn Mclaughlin has to say about the National Trust for Scotland appointing Neil Oliver its new president (Perspective, 4 October).

Over the last few years, there has been a sustained, concentrated effort within cultural and literary circles in Scotland to articulate our history and values from a pro-independence perspective. To progress, many artists, commentators and authors have found that their face and views need to fit the political narrative being carefully nurtured by the Scottish Government. Many people, more knowledgeable than myself, have documented such a phenomenon, and have often been on the wrong end of it.

Much of the fervour surrounding and against this appointment is simply because Neil Oliver is daring to recount Scotland’s history from a different perspective, and that threatens those who confuse culture with political affiliations and opinion. Scots can of course hold different opinions, and up until recently have not been victimised for doing so.

More importantly, it is evident that the tens of thousands of pro-independence activists in Scotland do not have a current focus. The referendum that they yearn for is not going to happen any time soon, and events could conspire to ensure the opportunity does not come around again at all. The SNP have lost the will now as well. In such circumstances, people will thrash out at individuals and issues out of frustration, and that is almost certainly a big part of this story. Pro-independence activists would be better advised to take an interest in everyday life and try to improve things in their local communities.

Picking on people with whom the majority of Scots agree is not going to win you or your cause any new friends, and this will only increase the chances of people like Neil Oliver ultimately being the ones to write the history of current times from his preferred perspective. Others, currently favoured, will be just a footnote in history.

VICTOR CLEMENTS Taybridge Terrace, Aberfeldy

If Peter Broughan is a member of the National Trust, he obviously does not read the Trust magazine, issued to all members, in which full details of the AGM were published. together with many members I support the appointment of Neil Oliver. We could do without the kind of language expressed by Peter Broughan in the article on page 4 of the Scotsman today (4 October).

JOHN WILSON Comely Bank Road, Edinburgh