YOUR report of an English backlash over devolution is no surprise, but what I find interesting is such overwhelming English support for "devolution-max" ("Anti-Holyrood backlash spurs English power grab", The Herald, January 23).

It would appear that if Westminster blocks that option from appearing on the ballot paper then it will be defying the wishes of the English electorate as much as those in Scotland.

The issue is of course broader than this. The English have legitimate grievances regarding the constitutional set-up, though it would be helpful if it did not involve placing the blame on Scotland. The best solution to the difficulties outlined would simply be Scottish independence, as that would solve the problem. This is the solution that I hope Scotland chooses.

If that does not happen, other solutions must be sought. The call for an English parliament does have certain problems associated, as such a parliament would largely duplicate Westminster. It is hard to have a federation when one part is so large. The Liberal Democrats have a policy of splitting England up into several federal states, but that policy does not seem to attract much enthusiasm in England.

Nevertheless the question of how England is governed should be a question for the English and it is for them to decide what means will suit them best. However as it now appears that the English will be satisfied with a situation where Scotland takes on financial autonomy within the UK, it becomes all the more vital that this option is kept on the agenda.

Iain Paterson,

6 Methven Avenue,

Bearsden.

The debate around independence and the proposed referendum is being conducted with an increasingly strident and antagonistic tone by politicians, whatever their allegiance, in both Holyrood and Westminster. This is an unnecessary and worrying development. Whatever we may believe is best for our countries in the future, we have a history of a remarkable unity over centuries. This has brought many benefits for us all, though, as with any union, there are some decisions which have benefited one area more than the other, and vice versa.

There are some politicians north and south of the Border who have sought to do their best for the UK, taking into account the differing needs and aspirations of all the people. In the same way, there are others who have only looked at their own local interests, thus creating unfairness and therefore cries of injustice have been heard from both north and south.

I ask all our politicians that the debate over the future of our nation be conducted in an honest, open, and gracious manner. The debate should not incite antagonism and ill-feeling; rather it should lay out the facts as to the benefits for either independence or keeping the Union. We should be thankful for the past Union, no matter the inevitable deficiencies at times, and take the vital decision regarding the future in the light of what is best, not in the light of increasing anger. Whatever the eventual outcome, Scotland and England will always be neighbours; it is important we remain as friends, and do not become aggressive enemies.

Alasdair HB Fyfe,

59 Mearns Road, Clarkston.

ROTH Niven of Vancouver seems to believe that at the bottom of this complex political issue lies nothing but outdated notions of blood right (Letters, January 23). Under his apparent brand of nationalism, would those who have settled in Scotland to live and work, be they Canadian, Pakistani or English, but who can't claim this as the land of their fathers, be disenfranchised? I was born in Scotland and have lived here all my life, but my maternal grandmother was English; I would never demand to vote in an English election. Recent exploration of my family tree has revealed that her maternal grandfather was Jewish. To the best of my knowledge, my mother has no plans to claim Israeli citizenship. Further back, as my surname might suggest, I am of Norse origin, with a smattering of Iberian. I won't be voting in Norway or Spain either.

My brother settled in the Far East 20 years ago. He follows what goes on in Scotland, but has no inclination to participate in our politics as he sees no need and considers it none of his business; yet he will always be Scottish. Mr Niven clearly feels a fond attachment to the land of his birth and this is entirely commendable and justifiable but, for whatever reason, he doesn't seem to feel it sufficiently strongly to consider returning. His passion for the misty glens does not carry rights. It does not in any way hold equivalence with my franchise.

There are some North Americans in particular who seem to believe ownership of a shortbread tin qualifies for clan leadership. We humour them out of politeness, as we do any house guests.

This referendum should be voted in by the electorate who voted for it; nobody else.

Martin Morrison,

5 Inverpark, Lochinver.

GIVEN that the American Revolution was fuelled by the iniquity of taxation without representation, one has to ask why Roth Niven fees that representation without taxation is any more equitable. After all, is it not a universal maxim (of Scottish origin) that the calling of the tune should be confined to those who are paying the piper?

George F Campbell,

26 Bruce Road,

Pollokshields, Glasgow.