I WATCHED some of the Scotland Bill debate in the House of Commons this week, and was greatly impressed by the performance of some of the newly-elected SNP members, most of whom I confess I had never heard of before the May election.

They spoke confidently, some without any notes, made their points clearly, and did not appear in any way overawed by their new surroundings and situation.

I'm afraid I cannot say the same about the performance of our Secretary of State for Scotland ("Tories accused of failing to deliver extra welfare powers", The Herald, July 1). David Mundell was okay when, head down, he was reading the written statements presumably prepared for him by his officials, but his response to questions was laboured and unimpressive. He has an irritating habit of umming and aahing constantly while searching for the next word, and he seldom made any effort to reply properly to the question asked. I hope those in the public gallery and television viewers do not think that this is the best Scotland can produce for such an important Government position. Ruth Davidson and most of the Conservative MPs at Holyrood would do a much better job.

However Mr Mundell's masters in Downing Street and the Treasury are no doubt very pleased with him, as he refused to make a single concession on any of the amendments being debated. And when put to the vote, hordes of Conservative MPs emerged from the bars and dining rooms to troop through the lobbies and win the day, despite never more than half a dozen of them being present in the chamber at any one time during the debate. This is what passes for modern parliamentary democracy in the UK.

And incidentally the system of voting is unbelievably antiquated and antediluvian, with everyone trooping of to file through lobbies to have their names ticked off on a sheet, this process taking up 15 or 20minutes that could otherwise be used for debating. Surely in these days of instant communication a better method could be found, especially since those in the chamber seem to spend much of their time texting on mobile phones or on iPads?

Iain A D Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I WONDER how many of those who voted No in the referendum appreciate the irony of the proceedings from Westminster on deliberations of the Scotland Bill being lorded over by Scotland's lone Conservative MP? His replies to various amendments are designed to give the impression that he is one of the great political thinkers of our time.

Is this the same MP who was not even trusted by the coalition to be Secretary of State for Scotland and was subordinate to a Liberal Democrat? The reality is even more depressing as several Conservative Party members of my acquaintance have admitted that fortune had not smiled on them when David Mundell was re-elected as their only representative in Scotland. As one succinctly commented, he will fail to comprehend or even consider the consequences of his self-important utterances and will further the cause of independence as no other MP could.

I wonder how any Scots voted for this version of better together?

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.

IF anyone in Scotland has ever struggled to understand the West Lothian question they need only look at the amendments to the Scotland Bill. Repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of Scotland's elected MPs voted for amendments which were rejected under a tsunami of English MPs' votes. And yet David Cameron is concerned about the possible impact of the 59 Scottish MPs on votes on English matters. Strangely, the utter inability of Scotland's MPs even were all 59 to vote for something to outvote even the MPs from London and the south-east off England seems to concern him not at all.

Professor William G Naphy,

1 Calsayseat Road,

Aberdeen.