I SHARE Iain Macwhirter's unease that the Smith Commission process only involves politicians ("Please make sure you have your say on more powers", The Herald, October 23).

As he says, the opportunity is provided for all citizens to submit views on the new powers which should be devolved and one hopes they make use of that facility. However, in common with most commentators, he overlooks one of the most critical powers, namely the power to decide on how politicians should be elected. This remains a constitutional power reserved to the UK Parliament.

The track record of UK governments in exercising that power has been abysmal. Alistair Darling set up the Arbuthnott Commission in 2004 to consider the fact that we now have four different election systems operating in Scotland, with four different sets of boundaries. The commission reported in 2006 but not one of its recommendations has been implemented or addressed in the eight years since. Devolution of the power to decide election processes would therefore be entirely justified and, via the Smith Commission, there is a way of asking for it.

Unfortunately, the track record of Holyrood politicians in deciding on electoral matters is not too great either and there is certainly a case to devolve consideration to a "civic" constitutional convention, possibly followed by a confirmatory referendum to avoid the tweaks that seem to be introduced when the recommendations fall back into the hands of the politicians.

Thomas GF Gray,

4A Auchinloch Road,

Lenzie.

I HOPE Lord Smith of Kelvin finds time in his busy schedule to read Iain Macwhirter's excellent article. Not only does Mr Macwhirter set out a comprehensive list of the powers that should be devolved and those that should remain at UK level, but he also provides sensible and persuasive reasons for all of them.

Whether the complete package would constitute "devo-max" is debatable, but that doesn't really matter. What is important is that future Scottish parliaments and governments are properly empowered to put in place the economic and social arrangements that are most appropriate and necessary for Scotland.

Fiddling about with rates of income tax and some other minor economic levers of power is simply not enough. Any government needs to have control of all or most of the national revenue to pursue realistic long-term policies suited to the requirements of the country it governs. Pick-and-mix parts of this or that tax will simply not do.

According to the latest Gers Report available, covering the year to end-March 2013, total tax revenues arising in Scotland in that year amounted to £53.1 billion. Of that only £10.9bn (20 per cent) came from income tax, with corporation tax and oil revenues providing £8.5bn (16 per cent) and national insurance also £8.5bn (16 per cent). VAT raised £9.4bn (17.7 per cent), but is not devolvable under EU rules, with the other 30 per cent covering a wide range of other taxes including council tax and non-domestic rates which remain with local authorities.

So the Labour proposal of control of less than all income tax and nothing else of significance falls far short of what is required. Income tax is the least effective tool for stimulating economic growth, and raising the rates to produce more revenue for other purposes would be politically unattractive, if not suicidal. That is why the LibLab coalition at Holyrood during the first eight years of devolution never dared to use the power it already had to raise (or lower) the basic rate by up to 3p.

Whatever agreed package Lord Smith's Commission finally comes up with, it needs to be something close to the proposals laid out by Mr Macwhirter if it is to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people and provide the basis for a long-lasting devolution settlement for Scotland.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I READ with interest your editorial on Scottish Labour ("Party labours with its power plan", The Herald, October 23). It is clear that the Labour Party are in a mess regarding what to do with Scotland. Before the referendum vote their former UK leader promised quasi-federalism. However, their current position is to offer the most tepid of proposals to the Smith Commission.

Scottish Labour have a decision to make. What is their priority: responding to the aspirations of the Scottish people or bolstering the UK party? The decision that the Scottish leadership take on this will determine their electoral future in Scotland. They cannot go on facing both ways. Simply put, are Scottish Labour the party of Keir Hardie, true to their Scottish roots of social justice and home rule or the party of the new project created by Tony Blair?

Roddy MacDonald,

1 Glenmount Place, Ayr.

MAGNUS Gardham writes ("Inside Track: the battles are only just beginning for Lord Smith", The Herald, October 21) of the problems that lie ahead for the Smith Commission. These are significant, with a timetable that is tight and with so many sovereignty issues to resolve. "Sovereignty" is a much-maligned and misunderstood term. It essentially means having the power to make laws. But there are several contradictions in that simple state­ment for Lord Smith to unravel when the parameters include retaining the "integrity of the UK". Has the UK not lost much of its autonomous legislative integrity?

London shares legal and indeed political authority with Edinburgh for a start, with Scots law having a vital heritage status and the ability to make law.

The EU has apparently impinged on the sovereignty of Westminster and has under several treaties acquired substantial law making powers.

Then the UN and its several agencies have produced a body of law (Law of the Sea, International Court of Justice and so on).

Bilateral and multi-lateral treaties create obligations, agreements and in some cases statute legislation governing trade, defence and financial agreements that together create a great body of law that is not solely under the jurisdiction of Westminster.

We are now in the nuanced political world of the "post-sovereign state". Now sovereignty is shared (with the European Court) and indeed national sovereign integrity is often given up in order to create new sovereignties of a much more pluralist character. This is the new-world within which Lord Smith needs to operate.

TM Cross,

18 Needle Green,

Carluke.

A STRONG theme during the independence referendum was the need for greater community empowerment. When the SNP came to power in 2007, they and the other three main parties promised to devolve meaningful powers to Scotland's 1200 community councils. They all reneged on that promise. This was a particularly shameful act on the part of the SNP, whose raison d'être is the empowerment of Scottish people.

The extreme centralisation of power in Scotland (worse than in England where a third of the population still have parish councils) means that democratic decision-making is not part of our everyday lives. As a result, Scots do not have the experience or confidence to make a bold democratic move like declaring independence. Putting a cross on a piece of paper is not real democracy. A chimpanzee can do that. We need a new and sophisticated form of democracy that is firmly rooted in community life.

Michael Gallagher,

33 Precinct Street, Coupar Angus, Perthshire.