Memory deficit

In the unseemly rush to bring new powers to the Holyrood Parliament brought on by ­Gordon Brown’s late intervention, it would appear that a great deal of time and energy is being given to appeasing the 44.7 per cent who voted Yes and the unknown ­percentage of No voters swayed by this promise.

As only one poll in the entire two-year campaign showed the Yes vote in the majority (by 1 per cent), it is fair to assume that the majority of Scots would have voted No without any more ­powers being devolved.

Who is speaking for us to Lord Smith? Can there ever have been another instance in a democratic society when the wishes of the majority are not even being ­considered?

This course of events has been brought about because devolving powers to Scotland suits the Tory Party as it puts Scottish Labour MPs into limbo on English affairs.

For the same reason the Labour Party in London is now running scared of too many new powers and hence has washed its hands of Mr Brown.

The Lib Dems think that ­virtually everything should be devolved, however, their view on any subject at the moment is frankly irrelevant. So we are in a situation where the politicians and the media are telling us that what we voted for was more powers for Holyrood within a United Kingdom. I contend we did not. Is anyone listening?

Howard Lewis

Hailes Avenue

Edinburgh

You report that Gordon Brown has urged Holyrood’s unionist parties to unite around his plan to make the Scottish Parliament responsible for raising “more than half of its own revenue”.

That would be more than is raised by any federated state any-where in the world. The most raised is 40 per cent (Canada); in Spain it is 32.2 per cent, in Switzerland 24.6, in the USA 20.3, Germany 21.6 and Australia 15.3.

The greater proportion now being advocated by several parties except Labour (40 per cent) implies not a federation but a confederation.

Let us call a halt on “devo max” and go for “devo moderate”.

Steuart Campbell

Dovecot Loan

Edinburgh