A LITTLE to my surprise I found myself almost wholly in agreement with Ian Bell ("Crass sacking betrays No camp's lack of confidence", The Herald, October 9).

As a supporter of the Union, I was shocked by the removal of Michael Moore from his high office less than a year before the independence referendum. One would almost believe that this bizarre action represented some subtle form of sabotage with the covert objective of snatching defeat from the jaws of a victory for the No camp.

This irrational decision may not indicate a "lack of confidence" but it does reveal a Coalition Government which, perhaps through misguidance, has forgotten that, in the referendum debate, we really are all in this together. As a result of such tactless and ill-timed meddling in the works, one is prompted to consider if the issue of Scottish independence is in fact too important to allow party politicians to be included in the debate at all. The run-up to the referendum should perhaps have been organised solely by a royal commission.

As a dispassionate chartered accountant, Mr Moore appeared the perfect foil for what I see as the often over-emotional outpourings emanating from the Yes brigade. He took the question of Scottish independence seriously, basing his logic on facts and thus effectively spiked the guns of those SNP politicians who were awaiting the chance to jump on evidence that their cause was being dismissed or trivialised.

It may be that his successor, who seems to be described as almost wearing war-paint, is, as Ian Bell perhaps hints, being sent to the front line as if to show two fingers to the Scottish Nationalist archers. But as Mr Bell also seems to suggest, it begs the question: why antagonise an army already in retreat? Is the UK Government attempting to incite a decisive battle so early on before referendum polling day?

As always in politics, the truth will no doubt emerge in time but I worry, and I am certain I am not alone in this, that the inevitably dark and tainted waters of party politics are now more openly adulterating what should be such a wholesome public issue as deciding on Scotland's specific status as a nation.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

SURELY who gets the job of Scottish Secretary within the UK Cabinet should be determined only by who will best represent Scotland and fight for Scottish interests within the UK Cabinet, not who is the best bruiser to take on Alex Salmond.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

JAMES Christie asks who is to blame for the mess of the local authorities boundaries (Letters, October 8).

Comparing the introduction of regions and districts in 1975 with the chaos of 1996 is interesting.

In 1966, all parties agreed the set-up was finished, so Labour set up the Wheatley Commission with all three main parties represented.

In 1969 it reported, and was generally welcomed, although with some criticisms.

In 1971 Conservatives made amendments and there was a period of consultation, resulting in the 1973 Act creating the regions and districts, to take over in 1975.

In 1994 Labour asked for the Paterson Report to advise the incoming authorities on staff levels, salaries, committees and so on.

Also, the local elections of that year elected the first councillors for the new authorities who worked in shadow with the outgoing ones. This gave them time (a year) to set up departments, committees and allocate staff with consultation. In 1995 it happened. A total of 10 years and all parties working together.

Contrast that with the procedure to the present mess.

John Major referred to the "abomination of Strathclyde" in the 1992 party conference.

So senior Scottish Tories Ian Lang and Allan Stewart set about drafting a new set-up which seemed to use as a guide the two Conservative seats in Strathclyde as potential authorities among the rest. Thus South Ayrshire (pop 111,000) and North Ayrshire (pop 275,000) emerged, along with East Renfrewshire (pop 89,000) and Renfrewshire (pop 250,000).

Apart from some of the crazy boundary lines -Ralston went in to East Renfrewshire - there was such an outcry of gerrymandering that artificial splits of both large areas occurred, creating Inverclyde (pop 80,000) and East and North Ayrshires.

The 1994 Act set up the present position but was not approved until 1995, shortly before the first elections - a period of four years with little party agreement.

A difficult period followed as staff structures were "invented", staff were appointed, then moved. It was chaotic.

JA Taylor,

19 The Fieldings,

Dunlop.

IN his excellent letter about Glasgow boundaries (October 7) Ian Mitchell draws attention to the way the city was reduced in size by hiving off the wealthy suburbs to East Renfrewshire and East Dunbarton­shire for no other reason I believe than to reduce its power and importance. I used to compare Glasgow and Edinburgh with Amsterdam and The Hague and with Zurich and Berne. Glasgow was once the second city of the Empire but now it is sad to read about its problems. Of course, the Commonwealth Games will bring great benefit, but they will not deal with the underlying long-term problems.

The Scottish Government, with the referendum next year its main interest, is neglecting the deep problems in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. What action does the SNP have in mind to change matters?

Glasgow should have its suburbs returned. The Government should make a commitment to providing incentives for businesses in the west. We need to develop a long-term strategic manufacturing plan for Glasgow and the west. All of this is more important at the moment than any Yes or No.

Dr Ian McGregor,

Silcroft,

Fearnan,

Perthshire.