ALL acts of terrorism should be condemned and afforded clear, rational, thoughtful reaction. But have we tried to establish what turns the individual into a terrorist?

Each starts out as a single individual, and ends up either as a "lone wolf" or part of an organisation. Additional elements include power, self-worth, identity, a sense of alienation and grievances, real or imagined. These are then addressed through the "organisation" and commonly held, misconstrued beliefs.

So please, no knee-jerk reactions, no scapegoating, no "them and us". No turning our backs on refugees fleeing those claiming responsibility in Paris. Let’s debate foreign policies and whether we want to continue with drones, bombs, and send foot soldiers.

Let’s consider how we police here; how we gather and use intelligence. How we educate, not indoctrinate or alienate, but identify shared civic beliefs and values. Without building a stronger sharing society, we will not address poverty, alienation, exclusion and will see further marginalisation of "others" and individuals turning to extremism.

Selma Rahman
Edinburgh

INCREASING bombing raids on Daesh areas will not deter fanatics in other regions, rather it will encourage them to act. The Western Alliance and

Russia must have the political will and clout to start talking to Daesh. Bombing Syria is not the answer and if the Westminster Government agrees to such action it will not be in my name.

David Myles
Crail

ALEX Salmond wrote an excellent article on what the response of France and the world should be. But he didn’t say what the SNP or the UK Government should do. He noted: “[Daesh] are not much cop at fighting where people shoot back ... on the ground in Syria and Iraq they are in headlong retreat” and that “these military successes also illustrate a fundamental tactical truth that bombing campaigns are only effective when backed by effective ground forces”.

Does Salmond’s seeming approval of "boots on the ground" mean that he, as the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman, will review his party’s opposition to UK intervention?

Allan Sutherland
Stonehaven

The First Minister must be used to smear tactics

HONEST, well-informed journalists could be about as commonplace, I suppose, as honest, well-informed politicians. But as an ex-journo myself, I welcomed your editorial yesterday criticising The Daily Mail for its twisted website misrepresentation of what Nicola Sturgeon told listeners to BBC Radio Four’s Desert Island Discs (The National View: London papers twist the truth in efforts to smear Sturgeon, The National, November 16).

Did the First Minister really express passionate hatred of Margaret Thatcher as the Mail implied?Not at all, but for some papers – and politicians – facts are for fiddling with. For many readers of The National, yesterday’s editorial on the smear tactics of certain London papers must have brought instant flashback to the humiliating rebuke delivered by the official press watchdog the Independent Press Standards Organisation to The Daily Telegraph for the Frenchgate rubbish it printed unchecked after getting Alistair Carmichael’s notorious leak.

The Mail, of course, splashed exactly the same nonsense for its Scottish readers, under an equally libellous anti-Sturgeon headline.

No official rebuke so far, and no apology, just an unanswered question: Was its story simply "lifted" (ie pinched) from the Telegraph, or was the Mail also on a Carmichael’s leakage list? It would be easy for an honest journalist or politician to tell us.

Jack Newbigging
Irvine

SHE was "the most dangerous woman in Britain" during the General Election campaign. Now Nicola Sturgeon has become so again with the EU referendum looming.

Unnamed sources at Westminster are warning that Sturgeon’s “strident support for the EU” may put off Middle England voters from supporting David Cameron’s staunch campaign to remain at the periphery of the EU .

If so, this doesn’t say much for the intelligence of Middle England voters and is a condemnation of the powers of persuasion of "Call me Dave"!

Perhaps they can persuade Ziggy Stardust to email a supportive message from New York along the lines of "Stay with us, England!"

James Mills
Johnstone

I WAS amused to read in Mhairi Black’s column on Saturday her praising the fact MSPs can clap each other’s speeches while MPs can’t (Mother of parliaments is more like a museum, The National, November 14). While our elected representatives might be able to congratulate a good speech, woe betide a member of the public who does so.

While we have paid for the building, as well as paying wages for the politicians, their office staff and researchers, we can’t show any reaction from the public gallery.

During the Stage 3 debate of the then Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill 2005, I politely clapped Rosie Kane’s speech.

I still think it’s the best speech she made during her four years at Holyrood. The usher made it plain that any further such behaviour would lead them to removing me from the building.

Modern participative democracy at work in the 21st Century.

Ken O’Neill
Edinburgh

THE closing of tax offices in Scotland is commensurate with a Conservative government that consistently seeks to replenish the national coffers by taxing the poor and allowing the rich to secrete their money in untaxed hideaways (Shake-up plan for HMRC threatens 2000 Scottish jobs, The National, November 13).

Given the amount of tax unpaid by the rich evaders it seems sensible to tally up the arithmetic of recruiting more tax inspectors and keeping tax offices active and realising this as a worthwhile investment.

However, this arithmetic only applies when you want to balance the books by means of a "balanced" approach.

It doesn’t apply, as in the Conservative case, when your fundamental belief is that prosperity depends on the rich and therefore they are more precious than the poor.

Not to mention the mutual prop-up practice of party funding from those favoured by party policy. It all adds up, except it would add up more so if tax offices stayed open and tax havens didn’t.

Ian Johnstone
Peterhead

KEZIA Dugdale is absolutely right to highlight that what we do to help the most vulnerable among us says a great deal about our priorities.

She quotes the stark statistic that whereas over a third of all young people on leaving school move quickly into higher education, the figure is just three per cent for those coming from having been in care.

Labour’s proposal that full grant support be provided for those young people in care who have the potential to move into higher education surely has great merit.

The SNP Government would go up in the estimation of all who do not normally support them, as well as their own supporters, if they dipped into those unspent funds that Mr Swinney seems to be left with at the end of each financial year and put it towards this excellent cause.

Keith Howell
West Linton

I VISITED the Cook Shop in Henley on Thames on Sunday and attempted to purchase a number of their products. When I offered them a £20 Bank of Scotland note to pay for the items, the sales assistant informed me that it was company policy not to accept these.

There is a Cook Shop which I visit in Dunbar – do they refuse to take Bank of England notes? Is this political? Is it discrimination? An attempt to promote the Bank of England?

We will eventually get to the end of our tether in having to complain time and time again about this behaviour. Imagine the outcry if the English currency was refused in Scotland!

Jay Smith
North Berwick