I NOTE that the three Westminster party leaders have now vowed publicly to give Scotland more powers if we vote No, with a somewhat cynical timetable laid out to include St Andrew's Day and Burns Night.

This must seem for some to be an attractive promise but these three leaders, alone, are in no position to make such a promise.

There will be a General Election in 2015, the result of which is unknown and it may well result in a coalition again, perhaps with Ukip as a partner. Boris Johnston could well be the next UK Prime Minister and he has already publicly declared that there should be no more powers for Scotland.

Anyway, any proposal would have to receive the blessing of West­minster itself and the back-benchers, many of whom are in no way favourably disposed to Scotland, especially after the referendum campaign, irrespective of the result.

These promises may be well-intentioned politically to move the vote to No, but are in fact hollow and probably meaningless.

Nigel Dewar Gibb,

15 Kirklee Road, Glasgow.

Almost inevitably, we reach the stage of the signed appeal from the leaders of the three Unionist parties. Let us ignore the bribe and its late entry on to the scene, after thousands have already voted. Let us consider whether we should believe these leaders and their pledges.

We do not need to consider the Tories' past record on promises before important votes in Scotland, such as Edward Heath's Declaration of Perth in 1968 and Alec Douglas-Home's constitutional review in 1979. Let us, instead, recall David Cameron's speech in 2009: "With the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS."

Of Nick Clegg's pledge on tuition fees, there is not a great deal to add. Ed Miliband's changes of position are legion; child benefit for higher earners is simply one example.

These politicians have a track record of saying simply anything to get their way. Whether they subsequently fulfil their pledge is, to them, another matter entirely, and for another day. They are salesmen, not statesmen.

And they must think we Scots button up the back.

Gavin Brown,

Burnbridge Cottage, Manuel, Linlithgow.

THIS week I was, with 550 others, at a lecture at Glasgow University by Professor Sir Tom Devine (The Decline of the Anglo-Scottish Union, 1950-2014), one of a series arranged by The Stevenson Trust for Citizenship. Influencing factors on why the Union could imminently be broken were logically and clearly presented, with Prof Devine declaring his intention to support this outcome on Thursday. I found it remarkable then that in conclusion he opined that if devo-max had been on offer he would have joined 80 per cent of the electorate in voting for it.

How can this be? The mistrust of Westminster is well understood, but will the electorate really break the shared heritage and values and common ties of the UK, because, through misjudgment and/or arrogance, devo-max has not made its way on to this week's ballot sheet? Surely this is not good enough reason.

Gerald Wells,

19 Mitchell Drive, Rutherglen.

YOUR correspondent, Bill Laver (Letters, September 15), states that a No vote gives Scotland devo-max. No National Insurance contributions, no VAT, no corporation tax and no oil and gas taxes being retained by the Scottish Government is far short of devo-max. Instead we shall be helping to pay for a new Trident, HS2 between London & Birmingham, Crossrail 2 in London plus supporting a bloated, undemocratic and very expensive House of Lords.

In order to obtain our much-vaunted new powers, it is likely that politicians in the rest of the UK will insist on a trade-off in the form of reductions in the block grant (our pocket money). As a consequence, it is likely that the Scottish Govern­ment will be required to increase income tax in order to meet the resultant shortfall.

Gordon Evans,

5 York Drive,

Burnside, Rutherglen.