JACK McConnell paints a picture of successful devolution and claims that the autonomy it has offered has led to improvements in Scotland ("McConnell hails Holyrood as he defends devolution", The Herald, July 1).

I agree with him. His own government was frequently guilty of not distinguishing itself from Tony Blair's New Labour in Westminster but where it did differ it was for the better. The SNP Government since has differed more substantially, again generally for the better.

If this autonomy has been so well used and the Scottish Parliament has so outperformed Westminster, surely it follows that the Scottish Parliament should take on more responsibilities from Westminster for the sake of better government? And surely the logical conclusion of this is complete autonomy, that is independence?

Those such as Lord McConnell who see devolution as so positive but oppose independence must explain why they feel that the Scottish Parliament's ability to outperform Westminster ceases at a certain point. I see no convincing argument.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View, Glasgow.

The essay by Lords McConnell and Wallace is more notable for what it omits than for what it says ("Keeping a vibrant Scotland in a flourishing UK is the correct option", Herald Agenda, July 1) . They note their part in the Constitutional Convention - which produced the Claim of Right, concerning the sovereignty of the people. This claim took its name and spirit from the more substantial Claim of Right of 1689, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, and eventually signed into law by Queen Anne.

This claim listed precedents and grievances, and stated "he [James II] had invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited Monarchy to an arbitrary despotick power" . It went on to say that James "had forfaulted the right to the Crown", and James was removed.

In the light of this precedent how do they explain the failure to deliver on the second question in the 1997 referendum? This asked if we wanted powers to vary taxation, and got almost two to one support, but instead of this general power we got only the power to vary income tax by 3p. Constitutionally we already have more powers on tax than are being argued about at present.

They talk of sharing decision-making powers where it makes sense. I recall that the Scottish Parliament voted against going to war, but Tony Blair took us in in more ways than one. Is not the power to choose to stay out of an illegal war a power it would make sense for Scotland to have?

John Smart,

38A Kinneddar Street,

Lossiemouth.

YOUR correspondents Neal Ascherson and John Scott Roy (Letters, June 30) dismiss the possibility of a federal constitution for the United Kingdom on the grounds of asymmetry in population size between England and the other components of the present state. However, there are successful examples of federal arrangements where the component populations are by no means equal; in Australia, for example, New South Wales is more than three times larger than either South Australia or Western Australia, yet it seems to work well. The fact that previous attempts (overseen by a particularly incompetent minister) to regionalise parts of England were unsuccessful should not be taken to mean that the English are content with their lot- there seem to be more and more comments suggesting that they are not. Australia has, of course, the very great advantage of having a small separate Capital Territory - what a pity something similar was not set up in 1707 when political union between England and Scotland was achieved.

Andrew A Reid,

75 Glencairn Drive,

Glasgow.

ALLAN Carroll (Letters July 1 )assures us that the nationalist demonstration outside the BBC was "good-natured" and "light-hearted".

Perhaps he could explain how a printed banner describing people as "anti-Scottish" is better described as light-hearted than, say, McCarthyite.

Equally, I doubt that the hand-drawn messages saying that BBC staff will be "Sacked on the 18th of September" can be interpreted as a good-natured defence of media freedom.

Stephen Low,

59 Calder Street,

Glasgow.

IN the light of two instances of the phrase "settled will of the (whatever) people / electorate" in your Letters Pages (July 1) - one, lamentably, in your headline - could we agree to get rid of it from the debate?

It is quite meaningless. Except in a totalitarian state like North Korea, the result of any election or referendum cannot be so described. There will always be non-voters, people who vote in various ways, floating voters, and those who subsequently change their minds.

Doubtless, whatever the result in September, the proponents of the "winning" side will loudly proclaim that it is "the settled will of the Scottish people". Quite apart from the points already made, those voting are by no means all ethnically Scottish, and the many Scots living in the diaspora have no vote at all. So on all accounts this is a bit of meaningless verbiage.

J McIntyre,

Bonnaughton Road,

Bearsden.