Sir, Following intense debate over two years, and a vote against independence, but for further change, we are asked to work together on a settlement which should provide stability for a generation.

There is no point in continuing a position where Scotland is “given” a lump sum - whatever the size - with the power to choose how it is spent. This allows two complaints to continue to cause friction without resolution.

The first is that the Scots are whinging beggars living off the generosity of others. The second is that others impose unwanted policies, deprive Scotland of its wealth, and hand back a pittance.

What Scotland needs, if it is not to be full independence, is a “New Union”, which is financially transparent, with genuine powers to deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish needs. It needs to get rid of some of the misconceptions around the current settlement, and to reduce the causes of friction.

Scotland should, therefore, raise by direct and indirect taxation, VAT, duties on fuel, whisky etc., due EU rebates, Crown Estates income, all revenue that is required for the running of all government services provided by the Scottish Parliament, and, in addition, the levy to be paid to the UK government to cover Scotland’s due share of the UK national debt, defence, EU contributions, and any other spending retained and delivered by the UK Parliament.

This would make Scotland a paying partner, rather than a supplicant. Regardless of what powers are to be devolved or retained, this should be the explicit position. It has the benefit of absolute clarity in the relationship, and simplicity, unlike “Barnett”. It should be the case even if a tax or rate is fixed by the EU, or by the UK parliament. It is normal practice in many federated or “united” states.

It would mean that all revenue is firstly raised in Scotland, and then our due share of UK spending within the Union is passed on. It is not sustainable to give Scotland only the ability to tweak a minor part, of only part of income tax revenue, which is only part of the revenue wealth raised from Scotland. This means a minor cut in the handed-down budget can only be paid for by a large change in the part of income tax we might be “allowed” to control, due to leverage. Benefits are not paid from income tax alone.

It is for England alone to decide how it wants to be governed – as a single nation within the Union, or as a series of devolved, or federal units. The full Union Parliament should have all UK MPs able to vote on the issues relevant to the UK as a whole. England should be able to have its MPs meet in a separate session, parliament, or number of devolved assemblies without Scottish MPs - no “West Lothian” question. Naturally, if a project is to attract UK spending – like HS2 or Trident – it is a full UK issue.

Likewise, no unelected member of the House of Lords who is not there as a Scottish Peer should amend, veto, or legislate away Scottish legislation or powers, and vice-versa with regard to England.

Failure to go far enough in rethinking the Union for the modern age, due to a lack of imagination, or Tory versus Labour politicking, will mean a brief respite before we go through this debate again. That would suit me fine, but if Mr Cameron, Mr Miliband, et al wish to avoid some more sleepless nights they will need more than “Calamity” Brown’s fancy words and yet-to-be-defined vows of vague powers that might include a pig in a poke, or more likely, a lemon.

I am, etc.

Dave Robb Craigerne Lane Peebles