MPS living in fantasy land if they believe devolution settlement can be reformed

The Public Administration and Constitutional Committee of the House of Commons is in fantasy land if it considers its report represents a solution to the problem of the union (Scotsman, 31 July).

There is nothing new about speculation about the prospects for devolution. Tony Blair, the prime minister whose Westminster government introduced it, likened it to a parish council.

But he excelled himself when, in one of his reshuffles, he failed to appoint anyone to the post of Scottish secretary, only to quickly backtrack when it was realised that the legislation was peppered with references to the role of the Secretary of State for Scot- land, and he had to hurriedly draft Alistair Darling, already the transport secretary. into the post, rendering them both part-time positions.

What was being missed even with the U-turn, was the fact that the Scottish secretary under devolution had no loc is on the historic legislation – that, largely, had passed to the Holyrood first minister. With so little to do, the Westminster post soon became one of an overpaid spin doctor whose role seemed to be to denigrate the resulting SNP government, and by association, also those who had voted for them.

But there is a more recent example of the denigration of devolution. The Unionist parties, led by the Conservatives, were instrumental in “granting” the SNP – correction, the Scottish Government – additional tax powers.

Yet, no sooner had the SNP partially implemented an increase in tax rates, mainly for the higher paid, than the same Conservatives were accusing the SNP of making Scotland the “highest taxed part of the UK” while their supporters were awaiting a tax-reducing proposal from Scottish leader Ruth Davidson without success.

The Conservative reaction was left to the UK defence minister Gavin Williamson to declare how unfair it was for the troops in Scotland (who were in the higher-pay bracket) to suffer the SNP increase, so he is using tax resources from Scotland and England to reimburse them for their loss.

Another matter that seems to have escaped the committee’s notice is that many factions in England are claiming that the EU referendum “Brexit” vote represented their regaining English independence, while Scotland voted Remain.

What, therefore, are the prospects for the survival of any semblance of a United Kingdom?

The only thing that will work is independence for both countries - I reckon it is back to the drawing board!

DOUGLAS R MAYER Thomson Crescent, Currie,

Midlothian Your editorial (31 July) is right that there is a worrying misunderstanding of devolution and how it works at Westminster, and that we would all be better off if this was resolved.

For the first eight years of devolution, the lead party in the devolved Scottish parliament was the same as that in power at Westminster, and we had no obvious issues with that.

What we failed to appreciate was what might happen if we had different parties in power at the different levels and, even more than that, what might happen if we had a party in government in Scotland that set out to actively destabilise the other.

We need to discard our rosetinted spectacles about devolution and put in place mechanisms that will resolve issues, mechanisms that are strong enough to withstand not only the inevitable political games that are played, but also the systematic and determined efforts of one to destroy the other.

We need proper transparency and accountability and an end to the “It wisnae me” narrative that so plagues our political landscape.

I have never believed that Westminster was involved in a Brexit “power grab”, but it did fail to actively articulate why that was not the case. VICTOR CLEMENTS

Taybridge Terrace Aberfeldy, Perthshire