I MUST take issue with the Agenda article by Professor Kenneth Armstrong ("Political representation at Holyrood would suffer under independence", The Herald, August 29).

The notion that political representation would be adversely affected by independence is absurd, not least because representation is so poor given the system of single-member constituencies.

Moreover, Prof Armstrong's assertion that we in no way suffer from governments we do not elect because they are elected by a larger majority (in fact usually a mere plurality) in the larger entity of the United Kingdom is also ridiculous. If a particular polity is out of step with a larger entity of which it is part, that is a very strong reason to cease to be part of that entity. Devolution itself was created to try to resolve the problem of Scotland's distinct interests, but frankly it has not been enough.

The absurdity of claiming that it is perfectly legitimate for us to be overruled by a larger electorate is illustrated by how the same people making the argument would react if it were proposed that we join a different entity. If it is better to be part of a larger country and accept our own votes be diluted in return for more avenues of representation, why not apply to join the United States? We would be part of a larger country and gain representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, plenty more forms of representation. I do not see this suggestion being popular, however, not least with Prof Armstrong, who would doubtless hold rather different views on independence (for the UK) then.

Prof Armstrong further claims that entrenching such things as universal healthcare in the constitution is playing politics with the constitution. It is true that universal healthcare is political, but so are universal suffrage, freedom of speech, procedural due process and so on. Moreover, many countries seem to manage perfectly well with constitutions that entrench such social rights.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View,

Glasgow.

PROFESSOR Kenneth Armstrong seems to imply that poverty is best tackled within a unified Britain. In 40 years of study and practice in welfare, I have never seen so many with low or no incomes and those without food.

If independence is rejected then the Coalition Government would continue its anti-poor policies and, if Labour came to power, it would maintain the present huge cuts on the welfare budget and those which are still to come.

Independence offers the hope of change within a Scotland with a far wider concern for the poor. Hopefully, the Westminster Labour Party would then realise that it needs to regard welfare as an investment for the future, not as a burden to be reduced because it makes the wealthy slightly less rich.

Bob Holman,

76 Balgonie Road,

Glasgow.