IT is inevitable but disappointing that the bidding war on how we are governed continues with little end in sight ("Murphy promises new powers if Labour win election", The Herald, February 2).

It was correct that the Prime Minister insisted on a single question in the independence referendum. His decision, however, in the hours following the result, to announce the Smith Commission produced a second question by the back door. Indeed his linking questions over how Scotland is governed with those in England presumably served his intention to widen the debate to include voters in England.

What isn't in dispute is that in the referendum the electorate voted, by a sufficient majority, to remain as a United Kingdom. It is that which provides the democratic mandate and is the "will of the people "validating the authority of a UK Parliament". The electorate didn't vote for anything else.

The referendum was an important event but not, as has been the case in other states, a "constitutional moment" of such significance that it would usher in the beginning of a brave new world that would draw from values that contrast with the past and its old ways.

A consequence of having no codified constitution has meant our history of constitutional change has often been piecemeal and unplanned. The incorporation into Scots law of the European Convention on Human Rights and the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 serves as a reminder that where constitutional change is introduced without public support its worthwhile purpose is tarnished.

Constitutional change to be effective rests on building a broad consensus and that most often takes time. As a people we remain at a distance from that position. There must be a political will for change to happen but the rush currently for instant gratification cannot be the answer. We are being ill served by too many politicians who sense votes in the political uncertainty.

What constitutional change cannot be is a form of Play Your Cards Right with political parties scrambling to offer their own Brucie Bonus while a baying mob shouts "Higher" or "Lower".

In this anniversary year of Magna Carta there is much to be said for a calmer and wider discussion which aims to reflect the "will of the people", not that of the bargaining position of party managers who will ultimately trade between themselves.

James Munro,

75 Marlborough Avenue, Glasgow.

IT would appear that the Scottish Labour Party have now completely lost their grasp of reality ("Brown lined up as Labour's secret weapon in election", The Herald, January 31). I'm afraid their cunning plan to resurrect the old warhorse Gordon Brown to perform his miracle rescue act all over again, this time for the UK election, is doomed to failure. You may fool some of the people the first time, but the Scots electorate has learneda hard lesson and will not be conned by false promises a second time.

I'm afraid the Scottish Labour Party do not have a good record in electing leaders, and the quality has gone steadily downhill ever since the late-lamented Donald Dewar. The latest incumbent, Jim Murphy, that loyal supporter of Tony Blair, supporter of the Iraq War and devotee of Trident nuclear weapons, is the seventh to take charge of the branch office in 15 years.Now he is apparently being elbowed aside in the election campaign to make room for someone who was a failed Chancellor, a disastrous Prime Minister, and who is actually giving up active politics in May.How on earth can Gordon Brown be touted as Labour's "secret weapon"? I doubt if he is still as popular in Scotland as is claimed.

There is no doubt that the promises in his "barnstorming speeches" just before September's referendum convinced a large number of those still undecided to vote No to independence, although I doubt if it persuaded many Yes voters to change their minds. The real con trick was a tabloid newspaper turning Mr Brown's wild language and promises into "The Vow", and then the apparent endorsement by the three Westminster party leaders. Mr Brown's use of theatrical phrases like "settled home rule" and a "quasi-federal state" were wildly optimistic, especially when floated by someone who is now only a back-bench MP with no power to influence policy.

The negotiated proposals of the Smith Commission fall a very long way short of Mr Brown's apparent promised vision of home rule or federalism. Even these modest changes to a few taxes and welfare benefit controls have been further watered down in the draft legislation now published, with debates and votes in the UK Parliament still to come after May.

The Scottish people would be well advised to pay no attention to any further promises from Mr Brown, Mr Murphy or any other Labour spokesperson about what their party will do for Scotland in the next parliament. And if, as seems likely, they have only a small handful of Scottish seats and no overall majority Labour won't be in a position to fulfil any of the wild promises made by Mr Brown, Mr Murphy or anyone else. The best chance of taking proper control of our own affairs here in Scotland is to vote in as many SNP members as possible.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow

RON Dickinson Letters, January 31) agrees that the 11 SNP MPs voted to oust Labour at Westminster in 1979. The quoted no confidence vote would surely have failed if the SNP group had voted with the main Labour group, for it would have been cut to a slim majority against. The ills inflicted on Scotland in the subsequent years of Tory rule can thus be "credited'" to the SNP although how long Labour would have hung on anyway is open to question. Their minority government was, frankly, tired. If only the SNP could see the sense in helping the UK to function more equitably as a whole instead of pursuing separation at all costs at every turn. It has to be feared that the UK's governance if the SNP hold the balance of power will stumble to a halt like the Scottish Parliament during the years of the referendum campaign, still continuing, and doing no one any good.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.