HAVE you ever seen the movie The Matrix?

It can be unsettling for a man of my age to eventually be forced to accept that everything he ever believed and was taught about the glorious democratic system under which we live is a sham. Years of personal observations which at the time were difficult to reconcile with "government of the people by the people for the people" were overwhelmed by indoctrination which suggested that change could be achieved via the ballot box and "the people" were in charge.

I witnessed years of Thatcherite government passing leaving the ordinary Joe worse off with the manufacturing base disappearing overseas, taking wealth-creation and jobs with it. There followed over a decade of Labour being the dominant party at Westminster, when they had the parliamentary majority to ram through any populist policy they desired, yet they simply became Thatcher MkII. An unpopular coalition has now taken their place and instituted an austerity program deliberately designed to penalise those near the bottom of life's heap while simultaneously transferring wealth to those with power and influence.

I recently corresponded with my MP regarding the ratification of the UK/USA nuclear treaty which appears to be being extended without our elected representatives knowing its complete contents never mind being asked their opinion on the subject, and as clarification on my question part of the reply was: "Further to your enquiry below it is the role of the executive rather than the legislature to enter into and agree the terms of treaties with other states. Parliament's main role is to pass legislation and scrutinise government." I would paraphrase this and the rest of her letter to in effect acknowledge that the executive, Her Majesty's Government (not the People's Government) and the Cabinet can do anything they want irrespective of the wishes of their own backbenchers never mind those of the Opposition provided "new" legislation is not required. The rest of the MPs, the legislature, are occupied by worrying about whether we should hunt foxes or gas badgers and how to spend their £150,000 annual personal support staff budget. They can carp and complain about Government policy but the Government can simply chose to ignore dissent.

UK plc does not need to control the great unwashed, it just needs the Cabinet in its pocket. The civil service then does the Cabinet's bidding, or is it the other way round? My interpretation of events may be subjective but my observations are accurate. There is a "conspiracy theory" that the UK is and has been for centuries a business run by and for an elite with the Monarchy at its head and that we are all just serfs, chattels of the company registered at birth; we just lack the wit to appreciate it. It may be a theory but it is one that fits the scenario very neatly and our so-called democracy slots right in there.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.

CURRENT fashion favours complaining about the EU. I would remind people of the proverb about removing the plank from one's own eye before whining about the mote in another's.

Our system of governance is fatally flawed. Can anyone tell me that, given a clean sheet of paper, we would come up with the state that currently exists? Surely it would take an idiot to believe so?

Here we are in the 21st century and we pride ourselves in being the cradle of democracy. Yet what has grown from that cradle? We are governed by an unrepresentative clique.

The second chamber is largely hereditary, which is indefensible. We have a monarchy, which (however benevolent and hard-working the current holder may be) is fundamentally incompatible with freedom.

We have no constitution. An "unwritten constitution" is no constitution at all. We are subjects of our government, which is upside down. The government should be subject to us.

The instruments and responsibilities of government are so obscured that is impossible for a voter to judge how well or ill any government, council, department, MP, MEP, MSP or councillor is performing. How can we then properly exercise a valid vote?

The party leaders are now promising change, but all they are suggesting is tinkering with the mechanism, when what is needed is some root-and-branch innovation. There are better ways.

David Cameron has hijacked the discontent in Scotland for his own party political purposes. His plan is to ensure a Conservative victory at the next General Election by discrediting Labour and the Liberals. He has probably succeeded. If so, he will reinforce Westminster's dominance of this United Kingdom to the detriment of all but those at the top of our unjust society.

Is there no-one with the political vision and will to challenge the status quo and advance our nation to a state of governance which will allow us to flourish? If not, then we must take it upon ourselves to co-operate and come up with a viable system, then insist upon its implementation. Revolution? Only if the existing powers refuse to accept the democratically expressed will of the people. We just need to work out how to deliver the message in a form that they can understand.

Alan Arnott,

Clarkston Farm,

Lanark.

SINCE the referendum result gave decisive backing (55 per cent to 45 per cent) to Scotland being and remaining British, several Unionist leaders have exhorted the prospective and now newly-installed First Minister to give up on independence. How naive can such people be?

As a Unionist, I totally endorse Ms Sturgeon's mission to continue to pursue the SNP's goal of indepen­dence, because separation is now an even more idiotic idea than it was two months ago.

Voters should ask themselves why Mr Salmond - in his opinion and mine a much better economist than the new First Minister will ever be - continued with his currency union bluff up to the bitter end. He knew, as did the thinking 55 per cent who voted No, that without a currency union and the backing of the Bank of England, an independent Scotland would have been doomed to economic chaos and a sharp fall in output and its standard of living, as the international money markets took against its borrowing levels and government bonds, forcing up yields, interest rates and unemployment. I continue to shudder at what would have happened if the assortment of romantics, fantasists and Anglo­phobes had won the day on September 18.

Like Mr Salmond, Ms Sturgeon has no means of disentangling the thick web of political and economic integration with which market capitalism binds Scotland to England. Moreover, since referendum day, matters have only worsened for the separatists. The price of Brent crude has fallen to less than $80 a barrel, as Saudi Arabia and the United States with its fracking fight it out for hegemony in the world oil market. Do not look to the Opec meeting on November 27 to make any difference: the energy fundamentals have irrevocably changed to the benefit of oil consumers. But the lower oil price and tax revenues have made Scotland's fiscal position untenable for the foreseeable future, in the absence of public expenditure cuts, income tax rises or more support from Westminster.

So when the new First Minister affirms that she intends to achieve devo-max and to build a "social democratic and socially just nation" ("Sturgeon sworn in as First Minister, The Herald November 20), I could not be more pleased. She has chosen to follow the path of French President Francois Hollande, and will fail as he has. The results will be the same: high unemployment, stagnant production and a flight of taxpayers and their assets to England. And with devo-max, but no Barnett formula, there would be no money from London to pay the bills. The rUK would no doubt be content: the Union saved and without heavy subventions to Scotland.

As long as the SNP are beguiled by their raison d'être of independence, the Union is safe. The majority of Scots are just too sensible to fall for such nonsense.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.