I read with interest the proposal of the Rev Dr Jack Barr for a devolved English parliament, effectively turning the UK into a federal state (Letters, May 13).

This is a proposal I am not unsympathetic to, but I feel that practical difficulties may render it impossible. With England making up around 51 of the 62 million people in the United Kingdom, such a parliament would be too much of a rival to Westminster (and more importantly the English Government too much of a rival to the UK one) for there to be a realistic chance of it being created.

It is not unprecedented to have a federal system with such an oversized unit. Canada is dominated by Ontario and Quebec and while they presently balance each other, in the case of Quebec independence, Ontario would dwarf the other provinces though not to the extent that England dwarves the other countries of the UK.

Another possibility for the English taking greater control could be the proposal beloved of the Liberal Democrats to federalise England itself. Yet this would still be unsatisfactory because the English people would still not get their own parliament whereas the other nations of the UK do. The defeat of a proposal for an elected assembly in the north-east in a referendum in 2004 puts that proposal to bed. Of course a proposal with more natural boundaries and real powers may pass but that would still have the other problems.

It might be possible to attempt a more modest form of devolution to solve the West Lothian Question. The English could elect an assembly to scrutinise English-only bills from Westminster on the model of the proposal once made for Scotland by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. This could potentially be combined with regional assemblies but has the pitfall that the English would then be left with a devolved chamber much less powerful than the others – and without any executive.

This suggests to me that, as long as the Union exists, England is in an unsatisfactory position. Even Scottish independence would only ease rather than solve the issue and England would still be joined with Wales and Northern Ireland.

It may be best for the Union to be dissolved and for Westminster to become the English Parliament, but this will be a long time coming and in the meantime I fear the English Question has no answer.

Iain Paterson,

6 Methven Avenue,

Bearsden.

Noting your letters on UK governance, we should remember long-term policy of the Liberal/LibDem Party for a Federal Britain with England having six to eight assemblies. The Commons could accommodate the south-east assembly, while a disbanded House of Lords could become a UK Federal Parliament with representatives from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Dr Alan Rennie,

24 Mallots View,

Newton Mearns.

The electoral success of the SNP has stimulated opponents of independence to predict scenarios to ridicule Scotland’s ability to run its own affairs, not least in the field of home defence. Scotland will have to have its own navy, army and air force, some claim, even adding that there will have to be a frontier at Berwick-on-Tweed.

There is no reason why a mutual defence agreement could not be negotiated under which Scotland would contribute to the cost of existing mainland and island home defence, minus any contribution to nuclear weapons and providing that its forces would not participate in Westminster’s overseas adventures.

It could include provisions to locate Scottish regiments in modern barracks dispersed in Scottish regions and a more equitable geographic share of all defence jobs so valuable to Scotland’s economy.

Equally popular with the opponents of independence is their claim that Scotland is not economically self-sufficient, despite evidence from Treasury figures in the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland accounts that the net flow of revenue is north to south.

Now is the time for the independence debate to be based on fact and not fiction.

Michael Hamilton,

5 Stodrig Cottages,

Kelso.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean should stay out of Scottish politics (“Hands off Scotland, Salmond tells Tories”, The Herald, May 9). He had his chance and he blew it. The poll tax was an inept attempt to replace domestic rates. While the aim was laudable – to eliminate some of the unfairness of the domestic rating system – the solution was hopelessly flawed.

His legacy is the demise of the Conservative Party in Scotland. His party supports a Council Tax freeze, having failed to support the SNP’s attempt to find an alternative. How cowardly. Why do the policy makers in the Conservative Party insist on the retention of a tax which penalises the less well off? People who, on low incomes yet with pitifully small savings, may be outside the scope of Income Tax yet have to pay several thousands of pounds to their local authority. People who have no way of avoiding that charge, even when they may not be able to afford their energy bills.

The Conservative Party I joined in the 1960s was never content to take advantage of those who were less well off. It may have been perfectly sensible for Tony Blair and his champagne socialist friends to abandon the lower orders to buy the votes of the middle classes. They have been found out. But I never thought the Scottish Conservative Party would be so craven as to follow that example. If this once great party is ever to regain the respect of the Scottish electorate, it must return to its core principles. It cannot remain content with the status quo: a couple earning £60,000 with a house valued at anything over £250,000 (no upper limit) – Council Tax bill £2600. A couple on an income of £15,000 with savings exceeding £10,000 and owning a house valued at £250,000 – Council Tax £2600.

At least the SNP had the sense to go with it, to realise the current system of Council Tax is manifestly unfair.

It also had the guts to attempt to reform it. It has a clear majority I look forward to its second attempt at finding a workable alternative.

Ian HC Stein,

8 Ochlochy Park,

Dunblane.

The Finance Secretary’s representative needs a basic class in government accounting. Publishing an efficiency savings line in the SNP manifesto is not fully costing it. That requires the detailed options, which have never been published in a transparent way since 2007. The SNP’s efficiency delivery plans and annual out-turn reports are not fit for purpose.

Nor have the costs of the spending commitments set out in the Concordat ever been published by the Scottish Government.

When I was advising the Finance Committee, I regularly identified such dodgy accounting practises for members, which John Swinney diligently used to embarrass his Labour predecessor. It is a shame he is prepared to sign off.

Professor Arthur Midwinter,

5 Raleigh Court,

Falkirk.

An interesting question arises from Harry Reid’s column about Lord George Robertson’s laudable efforts to stop car crashes and Anne Johnstone’s column about Labour’s need for a heavyweight Scottish leader to take on the SNP (“Drive for economic change takes its toll”, The Herald, May 10 and “Bring Brown back to lead Labour in Scotland”, The Herald, May 12).

Why not invite Lord George Robertson to become Labour’s leader in Scotland?

It was the noble lord himself who famously predicted that a Scottish Parliament would kill the SNP stone dead. After last week’s election results, Labour badly needs someone of such perspicacity to stop any further disasters.

Dennis Canavan,

Ardsonas,

Sauchieburn, Bannockburn.