Neil Ascherson suggests presciently a "velvet divorce" between Scotland and the rest of this increasingly dis-United Kingdom (May 15). Is there really much difference between an increasing sense of "national" (or any other type) phobia and opposing awareness? The answer is no, as is obvious in all societies. Since the Act of Union in 1707, it has never really been an indispensable pillar of parliamentary democracy, for in any major topic benefiting the electorate south of the border to its advantage it has been carried because of the gross imbalance in the number of Scottish MPs, whether in government or in opposition, in relation to the remaining majority: the picture is further clouded by the fact that the voter turnout is becoming increasingly small and thus even less representative of national voting patterns. As for "Britishness", that is well past its sell-by date.

John Curtice focuses on the challenge facing the Union (May 15) but suggests that although devolution has benefited Scotland, most of the voters still wish to remain within the Union; however, the same hurdles remain for the Unionists, for they will progressively see English political dominance at Westminster should, as is almost certain, the Conservatives gain power but they are almost a spent force here. The SNP has gained respect at home for its stance in opposing the Westminster government as thought appropriate and for implementing a raft of necessary policies within the past year. More autonomy within the Union will only be a short-term solution to retaining the status quo, for the electorate here is increasingly witnessing the unwelcome, costly, social, political, economic and destructive policies being implemented at the "national" and international levels by the government.

It is the people at large who are the defining source of political authority; thus, the only type of political elite allowed is the one that will repudiate its elite status and claim to speak for the many rather than the few.

We will not witness this in Scotland while under Westminster domination.

Ian F M Saint-Yves, Whiting Bay, Arran.

Lib-Dem MSP Robert Brown claims (Letters, May 15) that his party "gave up the opportunity to be in government because of our opposition to Scotland separating from the rest of the UK".

Even in coalition, the Lib-Dems would have been perfectly free to campaign against independence in the 2010 referendum. But, in the meantime, they could have had 90% of their own policies (most of which are broadly similar to those of the SNP) on the statute book. The words "nose", "spite" and "face" come to mind, as does the phrase "political naivety". By declining the SNP invitation to join in a coalition government last May, the Lib-Dems made it clear that they do not believe in the sovereign right of the Scottish people to decide their own destiny and the future of their country. Not very liberal or democratic, I would say.

Iain A D Mann, Glasgow.

Robert Brown, Lib-Dem MSP, mocks the Tories for their "six positions since 1967" on devolution. He then proclaims that the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported home rule for Scotland within the Union.

Curiously, the word "federalism" does not appear once in his letter. The official Lib-Dem position is for a federal Britain which is rather different from devolution. However, their silence on the issue is now quite deafening.

I would have thought the Lib-Dems would have welcomed the election of an SNP government as providing the possibility of a referendum that could have included a federal alternative to independence. Or they could have backed Wendy Alexander's referendum on condition that federalism was an option. Are they pushing for a federal settlement within the Consititutional Commission?

If so, they are being very coy about it. Why don't they admit the truth: a federal arrangement involving a nation of 60 million and one of five million is a nonsense.

Either the federal parliament grants equal representation to each of the nations involved - fat chance! - or we are back to an English-dominated federal parliament. Federalism is dead in the water.

Doug Bain, Glasgow.

Gordon Brown is today touring the studios to convince us that he has the solutions to all our problems, including the one created by his Budget last year.

In what must be the most expensive by-election bribe in history, he is borrowing £2.7bn to raise the tax threshold by £600.

However, I don't think it is going to work. First, there are about one million people who will still be worse off because of the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

Also, since the raising of the tax threshold is for all basic-rate taxpayers, it won't take long for the five million people who lost out initially to work out that they are still worse off compared to other taxpayers.Finally, the bribe is for one year only and they won't see it until September, not enough, I fancy, to save the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

The rest of the Queen's speech announcements are minor affairs mainly for show, some of them stolen from the Tories and many of them don't apply to Scotland.

What we see increasingly is a floundering Prime Minister desperate to convince us that he is in charge and can save us from the troubles of the world. His major problem is that he has been in charge of our social and economic policy for 11 years and people are asking why he hasn't solved these problems before already.

The implications of the likely defeat of Labour at Westminster make the debate about independence in Scotland ever more important. In 2010, we are likely to have a Tory government at Westminster with perhaps one or two Tory MPs from Scotland.

Faced with that, Scots are more likely to choose taking charge of their own affairs, and Labour's recent disarray over the referendum means that Labour cannot deny that vote. It is going to be an interesting two years in Scottish politics.

Hugh Kerr, Edinburgh.