OF course the House of Lords should be reformed, but not in isolation (“Public patience running out for a reform of the Lords, says SNP”, The Herald, January 3). The entire Ruritanian UK “constitution” should be swept away and a federal government instituted.

“But England is so much bigger than all the rest” experts say. Well, if every parliament has exactly the same powers, the size of the population it serves should not matter. England would finally have a government which got on with the “day job”, which, given the lamentable state of England’s NHS, prisons, railways and so on, would be not before time. Perhaps Scotland would have some actual indigenous broadcasting for our licence money. Everything except foreign affairs, defence and macro-economics should go to the national parliaments of the UK. A federal state parliament with no more than 200 members to run the remainder. Sovereignty a shared concept.

The end of agitation for independence for Scotland. Perhaps the Irish Republic would be interested as a means to one Ireland (though I very much doubt it).

Loading article content

What’s not to like? Well, from the point of view of many in London – everything: the elite who rule us: the media and commentariat based there: the bankers and financiers who churn out profit in the City; none of them will welcome “dangerous” change. So could it happen? Nope, we seem to be heading in the direction of an even more centralised state.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street,

Ochiltree.

I BELIEVE that the patience of the public regarding the House of Lords will have to endure for some time yet.

With regard to the possibility of change taking place, I would pose the following questions:

Who wrote in 1976 “The House of Lords must go – not be reformed, not be replaced, not be reborn in some nominated life-after-death patronage paradise, just closed down, abolished, finished”? The writer was someone who later became The Lord Kinnock, former leader of the Labour Party.

Who wrote more recently in 2014 “The Lords are an archaic anomaly, which fuels disillutionment with British politics. It exists purely on a democratic deficit which has been allowed to evolve unchecked for centuries”? The writer was The Lord Hain, former Labour Cabinet Minister. Many other Labour luminaries have, of course, been found a place in the Lords having had no difficulty in accepting.

If leading lights in the Labour Party have short memories and succumb so readily to the blandishments of a title, membership of what has been described as the best club in London, with a reasonable income just for turning up, the prospects for radical reform are verging on negligible. How refreshing and startling it would be if that party adopted the policy of making no further nominations, at least until substantive reform was introduced. I think I can hear in the background a voice whispering “some hope”.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

IF you look at www.parliament.uk you see the phrase “there are about 800 members who are entitled to take part in the work of the House of Lords”. So even they do not know exactly how many unelected peers, life peers and bishops are entitled to interfere with our Parliamentary process and influence government policy. It is simply unbelievable that in the 21st century we are incapable of refining our parliamentary process to ensure that all who participate have a mandate from the electorate.

As you highlighted in your article we have a House of Lords which is 75 per cent men, almost half of the members live in London and the south-east and more than half are over 70. How does this group purport to represent the population of the UK?

Dave Biggart,

Southcroft, Knockbuckle Road, Kilmacolm.

REVELATIONS about continued dining privileges for retired peers – and the access this grants them to legislators – reaffirms the need for immediate reform of the House of Lords. What these privileges amount to is an underhand system of unmonitored lobbying.

The Electoral Reform Society concurs with comments made by MP Tommy Sheppard in that the chamber “is an utter affront to democracy.”

Despite recommendations by cross-bench peer Lord Burns to cull 200 peers in the coming years, the Government appears to have little appetite for change. Reform must go further, and see the introduction of elected peers in a much reduced chamber.

Darren Hughes,

Chief Executive, Electoral Reform Society,

3 London Bridge Street, London.

KIRSTY Blackman is the first member of the SNP hierarchy to finally admit publicly what a large and growing percentage of Scots already know, that independence is a non-starter (“Scots voters don’t give ‘two hoots’ on independence, says MP”, The Herald, January 3). The SNP struggles to run Scotland effectively with its growing share of powers as it is. Daily we see headlines that show up its failures. Given its inability to cope with everyday matters, where is the proof that having all the powers it seeks via independence would not just plunge Scotland into catastrophic problems?

The SNP has a responsibility to be honest with the public about what it can realistically achieve.

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

THE question of poor UK productivity continues to puzzle economists. Our politicians pontificate on ?the problem, but they should lead by example. We are certainly over-represented in Holyrood considering its limited scope. But the real inefficiency is in persisting with 32 Scottish local authorities.

Three Ayrshires. Really? Why do we continue with the unnecessary overhead costs of 32 councils, 32 council chambers, 32 head offices, 32 administrations, 32 chief executives and multiple heads of departments; 32 sets of consultancy fees and 32 sets of strategies?

It is a rhetorical question. The opportunities for stripping significant overhead cost and focusing scarce funds on output is all too obvious, except perhaps to those with vested interests in the status quo. There are no kudos whatsoever in Scotland becoming a high-tax country. An efficient public sector? Now that would really be something to be proud about. Who is up for that?

John Dunlop,

19 Wellington Lane,

Ayr.