I AM not convinced that Doug Maughan is correct in implying that the solution to the unfairness exemplified by the West Lothian Question is perhaps worse than what we have accepted until now (Letters, October 16).

I consider that the political problems implicit in devolution were created the day the foundation stone for Holyrood was laid. I feel that, like the huge turnout last month by the electorate, Holyrood was a creation which was the result of a referendum which illustrated the fact that democracy is essentially government by amateurs. The referendum has left many with the question as to why, if the majority of the population voted against the SNP idée fixe in the referendum why is it they manage to hold such political power in Holyrood? The structure of representation should perhaps be reviewed.

I feel certain that what must be avoided at all costs is to now rush into a quick and inevitably-bungled fix to appease the SNP. It may have alleviated the situation if, in 1999 , with forethought, all Scottish MPs were considered as, ex-officio, also to be voting MSPs. When a Bill was to go through Holyrood all the 59 Scottish MPs would have come home and voted in the Scottish Parliament. When a Bill went through Westminster which related only to England - such as an aspect of education or of English law - Scottish MPs would have been expected to make a courtesy abstention rather than a formal ban. In such situations it would have helped if the whip was forced to be withdrawn from all MPs and MSPs to help address the temporary imbalance in representative party political power which is effectively at the core of the problem.

However, I expect that the chance of designing what is an acceptable compromise has been lost. Whatever process is used to arrive at a reasonable and fair solution, party politics in the UK will change.

I recognise that the consequences of dividing the House has so many dangers to the very fabric of the Mother of Parliaments that those calling for haste in devolving power to the four nations in the Union should pause, study and debate the various complex models and their future scenarios. For those who still think that devolution should only apply to Scotland I suggest they reflect on who in fact let the genie out of the lamp in the first place.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive, Milngavie.

THE irony of politicians of all colours berating each other for the constitutional predicament that the UK is currently in, and the crisis that we seem to be heading for, is that it is their collective procrastination and incompetence that got us here.

It was Tam Dalyell who first raised the West Lothian Question (although I believe it was Enoch Powell who coined the name) and the Labour Government of which Gordon Brown was Chancellor and then PM which created the Scottish Executive simply ignored it - as has every government since. It should have been addressed in 1997 when the Scottish Parliament came into being.

It should have come as no surprise to Mr Brown et al who so passionately advocate devo-max, whatever that is, that people in England and their MPs feel aggrieved that Scots MPs have a vote on matters directly affecting them when they have no say in devolved matters. Similarly, it can hardly be any surprise to David Cameron and those espousing English votes for English laws (EVEL) that Scots and their MPs feel aggrieved that their voting rights and thus their representative powers may be curtailed. Two-tier representation in the same assembly has to be a recipe for disaster.

Simply because the Scottish Parliament may have devolved power in certain aspects of tax or welfare policy is not justification for the wholesale banning of Scots MPs from voting on the Budget/Finance Act as that has in so many other aspects a UK-wide effect. Scots MPs would have every right to have a say on that.

But they should have no say in matters such as education measures that apply only in England - and the use of Scots MPs to ram through the measure that introduced university fees in England only is a good example.

May I suggest a simple solution? That any measure which is intended to apply only in England and Wales should have the term "(England & Wales)" incorporated into its title. That any measure intended to have UK wide effect have "(UK)" incorporated into its title. Any bill designated in that manner would indicate which MPs could or could not vote on it.

It's hardly a novel idea - it's a variation of something that seemed to work for more than 300 years when Scotland-only measures had "(Scotland)" incorporated into the title.

Alasdair Sampson,

The Pines, 7A Loudon Street, Stewarton.

THE long debate in Westminster on Scottish devolution this week was indeed, as Alex Salmond observed, "pathetic" ("Debate on devolution 'a pathetic charade'", The Herald, October 16).

With many self-congratulations on keeping Scotland in the Union, it was largely taken up with English matters, mainly the West Lothian Question or English votes on English laws.

Throughout the debate the contributions of the Scottish representatives, regardless of their party, were disregarded in the background noise of private conversations.

The scene reminded me of the many letters which I have read in the archives from an 18th century Secretary of State for North Britain to his colleagues, where he advised ignoring Scotland unless it caused trouble.

There is little doubt that if this debate had occurred before the referendum and the voters had had an opportunity to witness Westminster's almost total disregard for Scottish concerns the vote would have been otherwise.

Virginia Wills,

Glentye,

Sheriffmuir,

Perthshire.