The English regions should now follow Scotland's example

The UK Government is one of the most centralised in Europe and this was a major factor for seeking devolution in Scotland. But English regions still suffer from Westminster government's cherishing of London. As an example, take the government paper National Infrastructure Plan 2013 in which the investment plans for the next few years are set out. Whatever the merits of each individual project, London has been assigned a thumping £36billion, the south-east of England a further £10bn and the south-west £18bn, although that includes the cost of a new nuclear power station. Thus the south will get about £64bn for a population of 22million and the rest of England about £24bn for 31m.

This is only one bit of evidence. You can probably think of several more. But why is investment so biased in favour of the south-east? The defence usually offered is that London is a world-class city that generates wealth benefiting us all. And there is truth in that, but only because past investment has made it true.

It is also true that London and the south-east are largely responsible for our persistent balance of payments deficit. (Scotland even without oil makes the most significant positive contribution.). If London is such an effective dynamo, why can't it trade at a profit?

If the regions of England feel some sympathy for the Scots' dislike of the centralised Westminster model, and I think there is a tide of opinion running that way, then Evel is not the answer. There are nine regions in England each with a population of 5 million or so. Devolved powers to local parliaments or assemblies in these regions could be the solution to the West Lothian Question and provide a stable constitution. Regional parliaments in Bristol, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, for example, would have a direct stimulant effect on their local economies much as the Scottish Parliament has had on Edinburgh.

It would be costly initially but the investment would be recouped as the regions of England started to play a bigger role in the UK economy. Closing redundant departments of state in London, such as education and health, would help to decongest London - a clear plus. Governmental efficiency would be improved as different regions tried different solutions and the best could be copied by the rest. Contrast that with the present system of implementing untried and expensive changes throughout the whole of England only for them to be found wanting. Government within the UK would become more evolutionary and less dominated by political whim.

The Scots have led the way and the English regions should demand the same. An English Parliament for English Laws would be dysfunctional and unstable over time. The need for an answer to the West Lothian question offers an opportunity; only devolution within England offers a stable constitutional solution.

Michael Boulton-Jones,

5 Glassford Street,

Milngavie.

I'M sure the citizens of Australia and Canada will be surprised to know that according to your correspondent Roy N Pedersen (Letters, December 18) Britain deals with their "defence foreign Commonwealth and European affairs, security, currency, customs and excise, and so on" as "Britain after all gave this model to Canada and Australia, where it works very well".

Laying aside the fact that I have no sensible idea why any Scot would want to leave defence and foreign affairs with the UK I am fairly confident that Canadians and Australians decided a long time ago that independence was a much more sensible and uncomplicated way to run their countries which is probably why , as Mr Pederson concedes, "both these countries have outstripped the UK in prosperity".

"Devo whatever " in fact is dead and is merely a complicated process being used to hinder progress to independence by those who would prefer an uncomplicated unitary state.

The honest debate is between a unitary UK and independence for Scotland and I would welcome an opportunity to engage in that, confident that Scotland would decide to follow Canada, Australia, New Zealand into uncomplicated independence .

Dave McEwan Hill,

1 Tom Nan Ragh, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, Argyll.

SURELY independence for Scotland would eliminate many of the problems and liabilities that appear to be plaguing David Cameron and his roughly-assembled flatpack administration. For a start there would be an instant solution to English votes for English laws if Northern Irish and Welsh MPs are discounted, which is routine one would think anyway. Maybe a referendum for them might of course amend such discounting.

Then it would eliminate the cost to Westminster of keeping Scotland in the Union, indeed of keeping Scotland, which is what we are regularly told is the case - we are kept as in maintained like a kept woman, house servant or suchlike.

Then he would be rid of all the trouble with oil and nuclear submarines and political parties with head offices in London and occasional discrepancies between these and the branch offices in Scotland. He would lose the difficulties for MoD bases in their distribution for tactical military purposes and for providing jobs in the provinces and not just in the densely populated metropolitan parts of the country.

On balance one would think that independence for Scotland would be a helpful situation. Perhaps such realisations require cool thinking and all that din in the House of Commons whenever proceedings there are televised live doesn't suggest an appropriate environment for cool thinking.

Ian Johnstone,

84 Forman Drive, Peterhead.