Dictators of devolution

From: Trevor Wilshaw, Millmoor Road, Meltham.

IF, as you wrote in your leader ( The Yorkshire Post, May 15), “full devolution will now only be available on Whitehall’s terms” then it is not full devolution.

Furthermore George Osborne’s statement: “I will not impose this model on anyone. But nor will I settle for less,” is the declaration of a dictator.

If the North really wants devolution, then we have to rid ourselves of petty concepts such as “Yorkshire First” and create a united northern party to re-create a Council of the North.

Within this structure, we can then organise our own local government without interference from the likes of Mr Osborne and Eric Pickles.

From: Arthur Quarmby, Underhill, Holme.

SO devolution is to be granted only to certain Northern cities – selected by government and on governmental terms. This sounds like the recipe for a bureaucratic extravaganza.

Why are we not to be allowed full devolution for the whole of Yorkshire, just like Scotland? I, for one, look back to the time of the old West Riding County Council, which ran education, police etc. with economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

From: Terry Allinson, Bardsey.

IF Newcastle, Sunderland and Durham are not interested in going with Scotland, our address would become Leeds, North West Yorkshire Detached, Scotland, Great Britain. Perhaps York itself would not be interested, in which case the address becomes Leeds, West Yorkshire Detached, Scotland, Great Britain.

I have yet to mention Cleveland, Yorkshire and South Yorkshire; the first could join Durham, with Hull joining Lincolnshire or North Yorkshire and South Yorkshire (closer to London than we are) could join Greater Manchester or Derbyshire. My reasoning is clear; by combining with Scotland, Leeds would receive the same Government funding, a bonus for the country’s fastest growing city.