The seven Scottish MEPs, representing Scotland's four main political parties, recently wrote to Lord Falconer objecting strongly to the proposed reduction of Scotland's seats in the European Parliament from seven to six. We received a letter from him last month, on the week he demitted office, telling us that the reduction was inevitable. We are now in the process of seeking a meeting in the autumn with Jack Straw to put our case.

In 1999, Scotland had eight MEPs. That was reduced in 2004 to seven to make way for the new influx of members from the 10 accession states. Now that we are being told that we will lose another MEP to make way for Bulgaria and Romania, it means Scotland will have lost 25% of its EU representation in 10 years. That is deeply unfair and particularly severe in Scottish terms because of our unique post-devolution position. We have our own parliament, our own legal system, our own churches and NGOs, our own business organisations and trades unions. As a result, the workload on Scottish MEPs is much greater than on our English counterparts.

However, the most outrageous aspect of these proposals becomes clear when you look across the whole of Europe at the 27 member states. The UK has a population of 61 million and 78 MEPs, about to be reduced to 72. This gives a ratio of around 848,000 citizens per MEP. Spain, France, Italy and Germany have similar ratios and, indeed, all will suffer similar reductions in their overall number of MEPs, apart from Germany which will remain ring-fenced at 99, by far the highest number of MEPs in the EU. This grossly unfair scenario was negotiated between Chirac and Schroeder at the time of the Nice Treaty; Germany has suffered no reductions in representation whatsoever over the past decade.

Furthermore, when you look at countries such as Luxembourg (with a population of 468,571 and discover that it has six MEPs, the same as Scotland is going to have, at a ratio of only 78,000 citizens per MEP) or Malta (with a population of 402,688 and five MEPs, or a ratio of 80,000 citizens per MEP) and realise that neither of these countries is scheduled to suffer any reduction in their representation, then the inherent unfairness of the system becomes more tangible.

Even Finland, with exactly the same population as Scotland (5,261,008) currently has 14 MEPs and will be reduced to 13, more than double our number. Ireland, with a population of 4,234,925 also has 13 MEPs to be reduced to 12, double our proposed number with a much smaller population than Scotland.

Even examining the breakdown within the UK itself casts great doubt on the merit of the Electoral Commission proposals. Under the terms of the Treaty, no region can have fewer than three MEPs, which explains why Northern Ireland remains constantly fixed at that number. But why is Wales ring-fenced at four MEPs and why will the Eastern Region, the North East and South East and even Yorkshire & the Humber suffer no cuts in their representation whatsoever?

Scotland has been dealt a very hard blow by the Electoral Commission's recommendations and I hope the UK Parliament will review the statutory criteria and come up with a fairer solution that would protect the Scottish status quo and maintain Scottish representation in Europe at its current levels.

Struan Stevenson, MEP, Vice President of the EPP-ED Group, The European Parliament, Brussels.
The proposal to reduce Scotland's number of MEPs from seven to six is shortsighted in the extreme and based solely on a statistical exercise, with no account taken of needs of Scotland as a geographically large nation with its own legislature.

A cut would leave Scotland with the same number of MEPs as the likes of Yorkshire and the West Midlands, regions without any institutions or legislatures, and Scotland would also have fewer MEPs than London or the South East of England. By contrast, Wallonia in Belgium, with a population of a little over three million, has nine MEPs and Finland, with a similar population to Scotland, will see its MEPs drop from 14 to 13.

Our unique legal and educations systems, our universities, trades unions, industry bodies, farmers, fishermen and financial services sectors have specific Scottish needs and interests in legislation going through the European Parliament that requires a Scottish voice to represent their interests. The Scottish Parliament and Executive also have responsibility for the implementation of EU obligations for which they have devolved responsibility, and to have an influence from Scottish MEPs in this process is vital.

One hopes that Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice, which will ultimately decide on the matter, sees sense in recognising the unique needs of Scotland as a nation with its own parliament and executive, and pays short thrift to this proposed nonsensical cut in our MEPs.

Alex Orr, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.