In his article " Three key issues that will unlock the future" (The Herald, March 1) Michael Settle surmises that "one constant line has been that if there is a No vote, Scots can kiss goodbye to the idea of more powers for Holyrood".

I feel he should have put more weight on the Agenda article (The Herald, February 28) by Gordon Matheson, leader of Glasgow City Council, on why Glasgow is pulling out of Cosla. The fact is that Holyrood has proven itself very effective in gathering in powers even without a Yes vote. I believe it will continue to do so as a self-fulfilling compensation for not getting independence after September.

Cosla should have been an organisation cherished by the Scottish Government as a roadway from local government, transporting local issues into the beating heart of Holyrood and thereby welcomed to inform strategic policy-making. I believe Holyrood has apparently allowed, for reasons only it knows, that roadway to fall into disrepair and is now standing back watching the pile-up.

I suggest that what appears to have happened, at least from my perspective, is that Holyrood considered Cosla almost in a parallel to the way that the former PM John Major viewed Strathclyde Regional Council in the mid 1990s (a "monstrosity"), implying that it was so big it had in many ways become an unwanted rival to central government. The principle of "divide and rule" has been used by leaders throughout history.

I consider that Holyrood has already denuded the power of local authorities through such manoeuvres as creating a centralised Police Scotland under the easy camouflage of saving money; knowing I believe, that through such actions, cracks would gradually appear in the rationale for the existence of Cosla unless it intervened to make peace. I feel certain that the next component to be sucked in from local suthorities, regardless of the referendum outcome, will be the operational side of delivering both primary and secondary school education.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

I fear Richard Mowbray seems to have fallen prey to the delusion that the Scottish Government has decided not to extend the franchise in the referendum to those Scots, such as myself, living outside Scotland on the basis of some dastardly anglophobic plot (Letters, March 3). To top it off, he ascribes the role of a pro-SNP fifth column to non-UK citizens living in Scotland.

The more prosaic reality, as testified to by Nicola Sturgeon in a recent talk at University College London, is that they did consider how to extend the franchise beyond the Scottish electoral register but the complications involved meant, however unsatisfactory, that they opted for the simplest option - the register of voters in Scotland at the time of the referendum (including of course English, Welsh and Northern Irish people living in Scotland). It is more than simply an issue of birth certificate - by that criterion Alistair Darling, born in London, if he lived furth of Scotland would not be eligible.

I quite agree with Mr Mowbray when he says the ties of blood and friendship are more important than the interests of narrow political cliques. But why should those ties be limited to those we share a passport with and why should the ties that bind the peoples of these islands be destroyed by changing passports? None of my English family and friends has yet threatened to stop speaking to me should there be a Yes vote in September.

Michael Rossi,

66 Canalside Gardens,

Southall, Middlesex.

As befits a respected veteran politician, several cogent points are made by Shirley Williams ("Scotland and UK would be diminished by a Yes vote", The Herald, March 1). Scotland's future in Europe was raised as being uncertain. However, given David Cameron's pledge to hold a referendum on the issue in 2017, there is a very real risk of Scotland leaving the European Union should it decide to remain in the UK.

Baroness Williams also refers to both a diminished Scotland and diminished UK resulting from separation. This will materialise whatever the result if the Westminster establishment (of all parties) do not desist from negative scaremongering tactics.

The debate has become increasingly polarised and negative, when the majority of Scots are naturally inclined to the sensible compromise of full home rule within a British federation.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.

I fully endorse Margaret Curran's support for one member, one vote and that all party members should have a vote in the election of the UK Labour leader ("Labour working hard to restore the link between people and power", Herald Agenda, March 1) Does this mean Labour MPs will no longer decide the six candidates for the leadership and instead this will be open to a vote from all members? At the last election for leader, the MPs chose six, all of whom were from Oxbridge backgrounds. I refused to vote for a list restricted to a small elite.

Bob Holman,

76 Balgonie Road, Glasgow.