Constitution commission will listen to any opinion – unless it's nationalist

Sir Kenneth Calman says of his commission of the great and the good: "It is quite wrong to imply we are not interested in engaging with all shades of Scottish opinion" (Letters, 2 September).

The annexe to the commission's first set of minutes, from 28 April, 2008 and available to all on its website, states that "the commission starts from the position that Scotland should remain a distinctive part of the United Kingdom", which rather contradicts the statement in the next bullet-point that "the commission will consider the distribution of powers between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster without preconceptions".

Indeed, it even goes on to suggest that any change to these bounds for deliberation would "be justified only if it serves the people of Scotland better and secures the continuation of the Union".

There you have it. No preconceptions at all, except perhaps for those it already had when it began. Extraordinarily, given the commission's conceit of being "evidence-based", we learn that even if it could be proven beyond all doubt that independence would serve the people of Scotland better, that option would be discounted instantly by the commission because it does not secure "the continuation of the Union".

Since we must assume these minutes represent a true and accurate reflection of proceedings, it is clear that nationalists need not apply, at least not if they want their views to be considered in any meaningful way.

So, is Sir Kenneth being deliberately disingenuous in his claim that he wants to engage with all shades of opinion or does he genuinely not understand the contradiction at the heart of these statements? I must say, none of the possible explanations bodes particularly well for the quality of the final outcome of his deliberations.

RICHARD THOMSON
Western Avenue
Ellon, Aberdeenshire

The recent "growth in support" for the SNP, as asserted by Arne Park (Letters, 1 September) had nothing whatsoever to do with the people of Scotland wishing new constitutional arrangements.

With Labour in such total disarray, north and south of the Border, a half-competent Monster Raving Loony Party, funded by millionaires and helped by starry-eyed zealots, would be in the position currently occupied by the SNP.

Remember, by "growth in support", Mr Park is referring to around 13 per cent of the electorate actually voting for the party at the last election, and in the recent Glasgow by-election the triumphant SNP winner was not voted for by four out of five electors. Growth in support? You're having a laugh.

A general disillusionment with all politicians and politics in general is more like it, with the SNP being the beneficiary.

ALEXANDER McKAY
New Cut Rigg
Edinburgh

Hamish Macdonell is right to highlight the dithering by Tavish Scott as to whether he would support an independence referendum or not (Debate & Opinion, 2 September). The Labour Party in Scotland is also dithering: Wendy Alexander did call for a referendum now, but this was vetoed by Gordon Brown. What the party supports now is anybody's guess. I am proud to belong to a party that knows exactly what it wants on this issue.

JIM CARSON
Larchfield
Balerno, Midlothian