I BELIEVE the so-called new powers set out in the Smith Commission Report are a typical product of political horse-trading between opposing parties, and of little practical benefit to the government of Scotland ("Mundell under pressure to strengthen new Scotland Bill", The Herald, May 20).

I cannot understand why the two SNP representatives were willing to put their names to the agreement.

Devolving most, but not all, of control of income tax to Scotland may look good, but in fact it is a con trick. If the Scottish Government decided to increase rates to pay for increased welfare benefits, they would lose popularity but gain no extra income, because the UK Treasury would simply reduce Barnett Formula funding by an equivalent amount. Responsibility for welfare benefits would also be meaningless, because the only way to pay for worthwhile improvements would be by increasing income tax, with similar Barnett Formula consequences. The other Smith proposals are so trivial as to have little effect on Scotland's future economic prospects.

Yet the threat now is that the draft Westminster legislation might diminish the new devolved powers even further, in order to appease Tory backbenchers. David Cameron has an overall majority and can do exactly what he likes with the new Scotland Bill. There will be a flood of back-bench amendments which the large group of SNP members cannot defeat, even with the support of every other MP in the House, which is unlikely to be forthcoming.

Gordon Brown's notorious "Vow" of maximum devolution and a "quasi-federal state", signed up to in a tabloid newspaper by all three Unionist party leaders the day before the referendum, is not even a remote possibility. Being better together in a united kingdom will always be a distant prospect when one of the partners has 80 per cent of electoral and legislative control.

Iain D Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

YOU report that "devolution experts" recommend no further independence referendum until at least 15 years have elapsed "'Devolution experts say second referendum should wait for next generation", The Herald, May 20).

I am astonished that these "experts" are clearly unaware of the terms in Annexe 3,Schedule 1,Clause 3 of the 1998 Belfast Agreement which allow for a second referendum within seven years following any close-run referendum on a united Ireland. This is the formally agreed position of the UK Government.

Do these "experts" really say there should be one law for the Irish and another for the Scots ?

Councillor Tom Johnston (SNP),

North Lanarkshire Council,

5 Burn View, Cumbernauld.

THE only experts who should determine when the next independence referendum is held are the people of Scotland. If they feel that there is a bit of unfinished business left over from September 18, if they consider it unacceptable and undemocratic that the one-seat Tories should be governing Scotland and that the powers proposed by the Smith Commission are weak and feeble, then let the question be put again well before the life sentence of 15 years handed down by a group of devolution experts.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road, Stirling.