AS a Yes voter in the recent Scottish referendum, I have some sympathy with the Westminster Government's proposal for English Votes for English Laws, but only if Scotland gets devo-max (full tax-raising powers) as promised in "the vow" ("Discussion paper on Evel laws unveiled in Commons", The Herald, December 17).

Of course, had the Yes vote prevailed, then the issue would have been resolved. There would have been no Scots MPs in Westminster.

The UK Government's ideas are, however, clumsy and will be fraught with problems. Powers retained by Westminster over defence, foreign affairs, and so on will still require inclusion of Scottish MPs in decision-making. The neat solution is to provide equal home rule to Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland, making each responsible for raising the money they spend for their internal affairs. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each already have their parliaments or assemblies, albeit with limited powers. England at present does not.

If, however, that anachronism, that affront to democracy that is the House of Lords were converted to form an elected UK Parliament to deal with defence, foreign, Commonwealth and European affairs, security, currency, customs and excise, and so on, English legislators could then inherit the House of Commons as the English Parliament.

Britain after all gave this model to Canada and Australia, where it works very well. Indeed both of these countries have now outstripped the UK in prosperity. If it works so well there, why not in the UK?

Roy N Pedersen,

8 Drummond Road, Inverness.

I HAD no idea that a visitor's pass to the Scottish Parliament entitled you to set up an office in the building. And yet incredibly, Jim Murphy, a Westminster MP, claims to have done just that ("Murphy takes a pass at Holyrood as he unveils his new Labour team", The Herald, December 17).

Mr Murphy intends to be 'working out of the Scottish Parliament', although he has no seat within that building and has yet to explain to the electorate how he intends to get one.

That's not the only question Mr Murphy has to answer. Will he be paying rent on his Holyrood office? Will he be using the Scottish Parliament's facilities? Or is he just a squatter?

The tax payers are entitled to know the answers, but in the meantime, we know now that Johann Lamont wasn't kidding about London Labour treating Scotland like a branch office. She meant it literally.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

I WAS surprised to read that non-MSP Jim Murphy was to have his own office in Holyrood. At this time of year, with there being no room available, he will have to make other arrangements. He should follow worthy precedent and set up with his donkeys round the back.

David Hay,

12 Victoria Park, Minard, Argyll.

YOUR headline "Murphy: Days of London rule are at an end" (The Herald, December16) almost made me believe we weren't Better Together. Perhaps I'm just confused.

Thomas Brennan,

422 Clarkston Road,

Glasgow.

THROUGH years in industry while working and living in different countries, I learned a few hard lessons. One of the key lessons was to "'follow the money". In this management were seriously encouraged to understand budgets, expenditure and funding and not to be surprised. Your funders have a big influence on your deliverables.

Jim Murphy's declaration of a Labour Party quite separate from London is hard to believe ("Murphy: I want to rewrite Clause 4 for Scots", The Herald, December 15). It really sounds like Mr Murphy and his crew will be funded from outside Scotland ... that is, London Labour. With this being the case he will be on a short lease and his attempt to portray anything different is laughable.

A few false steps and the headquarters fellas will fix the branch office manager. Proper.

John McGuire,

54 Roman Road, Ayr.