I wonder if Queen purred with joy at Cameron's revelations

I believe that the Queen is entitled to feel a little miffed with the Prime Minister for sharing in New York the details of this important dialogue in this casual fashion. I would suggest that she has another "unplanned", "unscripted" and "spontaneous" chat with spectators the next time she is leaving Crathie Church after morning service and says in passing just exactly what she thinks of Mr Cameron and his singular lack of discretion.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road,

Lenzie.

Holyrood will soon have to increase the size and scope of its fledgling organisation for collecting taxation devolved from Westminster. Already in place (unless held back by referendum concerns like so much else needed to have been progressed by our government) is a Revenue Office for the 2012 agreement on income tax variation, this will have to take on board the further income tax transfer.

Iain Macwhirter ("Westminster must wise up as this is Union's last chance", The Herald, September 25) refers to collecting additionally oil revenues, corporation tax, excise duties, IHT and capital gains tax. A reminder look at Scotland's Balance Sheet 2013 adds VAT and NI, will power to collect these be fully transferred too? Income tax, oil revenues, VAT and NI are the major sources of revenue, although oil receipts are not what they used to be, Iain Macwhirter also should take note of the estimated annual fiscal deficit of £6-12 billion even if Holyrood rakes in revenues from all sources.

Leaving responsibility for our defence and foreign affairs in Westminster's hands saves a bob or two, and has the distinct advantage of maintaining the UK's credibility internationally while Scotland's interests are fully recognised. However, if any tax rates vary significantly from England's, cross-border financial shenanigans could lead to friction.

The block grant will be cut back proportionately as more revenue-collecting is transferred to Scotland, will the current extra per head be viable anymore? So many questions, sorting it all out cannot be rushed, the SNP ignores reality when it wants change right now. There's no trickery in delay.

Joe Darby,

St Martins Mill, Cullicudden,

Dingwall,

Ross-shire.

Bill Brown is slightly mixed up in his criticism of Ian Bell's column (Letters, September 25). It is perfectly democratic to retain the belief that Scotland should be an independent country and to continue to put forward that view in spite of the referendum result.

There is surely a world of difference between someone seeking power merely for the sake of keeping a particular party in power and someone wishing power to improve the lot of his fellow citizens. The reason Labour is now fighting a vanguard action in Scotland is precisely because too many of its members have taken for granted their vote in the traditional Labour areas. I contend that they filled the first Scottish Parliament with erstwhile "cooncillors" who saw Holyrood merely as a route to a safe Westminster seat rather than an opportunity to improve Scotland. The SNP put in their first team and so outclassed their Labour opponents. That is why they gained a majority in the last Holyrood election and why they look to be in power for the foreseeable future.

As for Bill Brown's remarks about the "sedition" laws, he surely knows that banning a belief has never yet succeeded in extinguishing it.

In the unlikely event that these laws are reinstated, I will still maintain my belief in independence and I would hope that in an independent Scotland, Bill Brown would not face prosecution either.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale,

Loanhead,

Midlothian.

The only plausible destination now is federalism says Iain Macwhirter. Although the greatest move in Scottish opinion has been towards independence, a clear referendum majority voted to stay in the UK.

But, the all-important campaign momentum shifted towards a No vote following the solemn referendum Vow of the three Westminster party leaders to deliver "extensive new powers" to the Scottish Parliament.

Speaking for them, and on behalf of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown stated these power would constitute "nothing else than a modern form of Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom". He said the constitutional settlement would be "as close to federalism"as you can get in the UK, and the devolution of powers would be "the maximum extent possible".

The UK parties finally woke up to the dissatisfaction and lack of trust in Westminster government, and responded to polling evidence over several years that the vast majority of people in Scotland want independence or devo-max. The Vows indicated a substantial move by the Westminster parties beyond the minimalist devolution recommended by their earlier reports, which, in Labour's case, would have retained Westminster control more than 80 per cent of taxes raised in Scotland, and left power over 87 per cent of Scotland's welfare budget in London.

Delivering home rule on the basis of devo-max can only be interpreted as an intention to devolve control to the Scottish Parliament of all taxes raised in Scotland - corporation tax (including offshore oil), national insurance, VAT, fuel and alcohol duties and others. Federalism means Holyrood having the full power over Scotland's budgets for welfare and public services, whilst contributing to decision-making and funding of a continuing UK foreign and defence policy. Breaking the Westminster Vow would deliver overwhelming confirmation that Westminster still cannot be trusted with Scotland's future, and would be neither forgotten nor forgiven.

Honouring the Vow to deliver home rule will demand a positive response from the SNP and Green Party and will provide a solid foundation on which Lord Smith's Scottish Devolution Commission can build consensus. The Westminster commitment to devo-max also offers the means to bring people in Scotland together and heal divisions within families and communities.

Andrew Reid

Armadale,

Shore Road,

Cove, Argyll.

The report that sample results of postal votes were available to certain groups in advance of the referendum count ("Election watchdog calls in police", The Herald, September 25) is perturbing. There are not only serious implications for electoral misconduct, but early release of such information would have allowed investors knowledge that could have been used for improper trading in Scottish shares. It is a matter of record that some major Scottish shares showed significant rises in value in the days immediately preceding the referendum.

I think the Financial Conduct Authority will be intrigued to learn voting trends were available before the actual result was announced and may wish to delve deeper into to whom this knowledge was passed.

Bob Downie,

66 Mansewood Road, Glasgow.

Few would disagree with Catherine MacLeod's claims in yesterday's Herald that politicians should have had a wake-up call from the referendum result and that more voters will feel empowered ("Labour has to show it has also moved on", The Herald, September 25). An ICM Poll conducted from September 9-11 showed that Yes voters were "rejecting Westminster politics first and foremost". So what are the reasons for such dissatisfaction with Westminster politics and what do voters need to make good their sense of 'empowerment'?

Could it possibly be that, to paraphrase a previous campaign slogan, "It's the election system, stupid"? As more than half of an ever-diminishing number of voters in every Westminster election fail to elect the representative they really want, it would seem just possible that this is a factor.

However, nowhere in Catherine MacLeod's article is there a mention of the fact voters can't do anything without the electoral tools to throw out the useless and self-serving politicians she describes, nor install the ones they would prefer. The first-past-the-post system is never going to do that and, without electoral reform, we are going nowhere.

Thomas G F Gray,

4A Auchinloch Road,

Lenzie.

As the carping, sour grapes and conspiracy claims by some continueafter the referendum result I am reminded that as a wee boy I was told I should try to be a good loser.

R Russell Smith, 96 Milton Road, Kilbirnie.

Q: Which politician in the UK advocated giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote; opposed the privatisation of the NHS; laid out plans to create new jobs in green technology?

A: 1) Alex Salmond, since at least 2007. 2) Ed Miliband, since last Tuesday.

First they tell us we can't govern ourselves, then they steal our policies. Another referendum, please.Peter Lomas,

27 Dunedin Park,

Balmullo, St Andrews.