IAN Lakin (Letters, September 29) offers the challenging suggestion of “dispensing with the services of the MSPs whilst restoring the power of the local councils” by having our MPs “implement… the devolved power in a manner that works in the best interests of the whole of Scotland”. One problem, though, is the paucity of evidence he cites in support.

Quite how the problems he mentions – cronyism, nepotism, centralisation and so on – would be addressed by having our MPs, rather than MSPs, sit at Holyrood as well as Westminster, a place pretty well versed in each of these evils, is never explained and left something of a mystery.

As for “failing public services”, if we take the NHS as an appropriate example given today’s front-page report with its self-indulgent headline (“Bloody nose for SNP on health plans”, The Herald, September 29) we might consider that, to quote a right-wing English newspaper, in the midst of “the worst financial crisis in the history of the health service” in England, “hospitals will embark on a ‘glut’ of closures, with Accident & Emergency units and key services for the elderly among those stripped out and centralised” to put the difficulties in our own NHS into perspective.

The “weekly threat of another referendum” is another cause of irritation for Mr Lakin. Yet a recent survey showed the parties which mentioned this “threat” more often were the Labour Party, but in particular the Conservatives. The party which mentioned another referendum least was actually the SNP. Maybe if Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale could stop worrying about the next referendum and its increasingly likely outcome, it might help such as Mr Lakin?

But most problematic of all is his suggestion that “the first-past-the-post system to elect MPs would have to cease in Scotland”, prompted no doubt by the fact that just now there is but a single MP from each of the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives, and no fewer than 54 SNP MPs, as well as two sitting as Independents. Perhaps, to address Mr Lakin’s concerns and ensure the certainty of the “right outcome”, to put an end to all this “independence nonsense”, a system of Prime Ministerial patronage could be implemented, while the rest of the UK gets on with first past the post?

But seriously, has it really come to this for supporters of the Union, that they start from the desired outcome, and then work back to find the most appropriate voting system to achieve their purposes?

Alasdair Galloway,

14 Silverton Avenue, Dumbarton.

IAN Lakin criticises the SNP's record in government but I doubt if his comments questioning the benefits of having a Scottish Parliament would be greeted with enthusiasm by the steel workers of Lanarkshire, or by all the local shops, businesses and communities which will benefit from the knock on effect of the steel industry being saved due to swift action by the Scottish Government's task force and the Liberty House steel company.

The truth is that Scotland is today in a fairer, healthier, safer and more confident place than it was before the Scottish Parliament was established less than twenty years ago. I suspect that the majority of Scots who remember what happened to Ravenscraig and to so many Scottish industries which were wiped off the map prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, and who will never forget the infamous poll tax, would shudder at the prospect of Scotland losing the protection the Parliament, even with its limited powers, gives to Scotland from Westminster governments we didn't elect and which impose upon us policies we rejected at the ballot box. Scotland's glass of democracy may at present be only half full, but better that than to be totally empty.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.

AT the time of the Scottish referendum, every suggestion that the SNP’s financial case for independence was seriously flawed was met with references to scaremongering, negativity or the ubiquitous “talking Scotland down”. The low oil price and the largest deficit in the EU have combined to prove that the naysayers were correct. However, the more domestic financial impact of leaving the United Kingdom has rarely been discussed.

For example, in Scotland we live in the remotest part of the UK, with much more difficult transport issues than elsewhere. Yet the Post Office charges the same for a stamp to send your grandmother’s birthday card, whether from Shetland to Dumfries, or Notting Hill to Islington. The standard, averaged cost is hugely to Scotland’s benefit.

When your Chinese-made slippers arrive at Tilbury docks in Essex and are transported to your local Marks and Spencer, the price in the store will be the same whether it is in Inverness or just up the road in Basildon. Who has benefited from that averaged transport cost?

And if you decide to shop on the internet, the post and packing cost from any part of the world will be the same for the whole of mainland UK, despite it costing significantly more to reach Oban than Oxford.

Just check the international price tag on an item of clothing and observe the varying prices, in euros, in different parts of Europe. Greece, on the periphery, with a small population, pays significantly more per item than Germany, in a central location with a large population.

Losing the economy of scale of the United Kingdom, and our shared transport and infrastructure costs, would cost Scotland dear. We have yet to hear what independence would give us which would be worth the price.

Carol Ford,

132 Terregles Avenue, Glasgow.