Having attended the Government meeting on November 9, I learned that our Government is working towards Independence for Bermuda.

Independence will not improve the lot of the people who want it one iota. I will be very surprised if our being on our own, instead of being allied to Britain, will bring any benefit at all to us. I have a great hope that Britain will grant Bermuda's citizens British Status before we do go Independent, so that our young people can have access to British education.

In the meantime, our Premier has tabled amendments to Bermuda's Constitution from the present Government only. These seem fair to me, but I do note that our Premier is unwilling to change No. 54 of the Constitution which allows a Premier to change any recommendations made by the chosen Boundaries Commission.

At the meeting it was claimed a Constitutional Conference would be too expensive. It might be, but I doubt if it would accomplish anything. I prefer Bill Cox's suggestion of Britain appointing three Commissioners who know about Constitutions and Bermuda, who would come to Bermuda (at our expense), find out what all the people want and make their recommendations to us and the British Government. This is a less expensive manner in which to obtain input from all Bermudians.

We must modernise our Constitution, we have been told we must by Britain. To do this in a fair manner to all of us who will be affected by it, we need to have Britain to say we must all have input, not just the Government making the changes.

If the Party that has formed this present Government runs Bermuda as well as they, with the help of The Rev. Goodwin Smith, ran the meeting on November 9, we are in very good hands.

PISCES Pembroke Look to the future The following was sent to Baroness Scotland of Asthal at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London and copied to The Royal Gazette .

November 15, 2000 Dear Baroness Scotland, In my humble opinion, it would be wise to have a constitutional conference in order to formalise the process of fairly discussing the proposed changes to the Bermuda Constitution and I really would be delighted to witness the democratic process through a referendum on these proposed changes. Further, all efforts must be made to fully inform all of the people on the importance of our constitution and therefore, the importance of our Constitution and therefore, the importance of any proposed changes to it. It is not just another piece of legislation! Such a view trivialises the nature of a constitution. A referendum and a constitutional conference does cost the taxpayer money but as a taxpayer I have no objection to the government spending our money on the protection of such a fundamental document, namely our constitution. I do not believe that basic freedoms of the individual, any individual should be compromised by the will of the majority in the House of Assembly or for that matter the majority outside of it.

Personally, I have no problem with the one man-one vote concept as I have no problem with furthering the ideal of democracy. The problem really lies in the process by which proposed constitutional changes are to come about. An old legal maxim comes to mind: "Justice must not only be done but it also must be seen to be done.'' The writer of this letter has great admiration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Mr. Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. All of these truly great men saw the way forward peacefully without a view to equalising old scores.

In a recent newspaper article in The Royal Gazette , the Dalai Lama was reported to be in Northern Ireland and he planted two trees, one on the Catholic side of a township and the other on the Protestant side as a gesture of reconciliation and peace between historically bitter foes. He is paraphrased as saying to a bipartisan audience: "The only way forward is to look to the future together.'' Remember that these words were spoken by a man who was driven out of his native Tibet by the Chinese government in 1959 and went on to politically and spiritually lead his people in the international forum while he remains in exile. When we look at our constitution, let us plant one tree for all of our residents. Let us all carefully consider where powers should truly lie so that such powers are less likely to be abused or seen to be abused by the people.

For the record, in my 48 years I have only written two letters on matters of public interest. This is my second. This constitutional issue goes right to the heart of our future coexistence. Please ensure that the very essence of our democracy, namely our constitution is not used to politically thwart democratic rights for present and future generations of Bermudians let alone our long term and short term residents from abroad.

DOUGLAS D. OUTERBRIDGE Devonshire It's the process, stupid November 14, 2000 Dear Sir, "We all know that all white people will vote against one man-one vote....'', attributed to Mr. Raymond Russell in the front page of your paper today. What a pathetic statement! If said in reverse by a white person, it would be labelled immediately as the racist statement that it is.

I am white, and I definitely shall never vote against one man-one vote. I don't think I am the only white person who feels this way. To paraphrase the Democrats in the United States in 1992 who summarised their situation so succinctly: "It is the process, stupid.'' To cut to the chase, if the process is so important, why wasn't the process (namely, how we change our Constitution) included as part of our Constitution in the first place? Such an omission is astonishing. Either our forefathers were not as intelligent as they would have us believe, or they thought they would always be in the driver's seat and didn't want to have to go through too much to "touch up'' the Constitution when it suited them.

My Constitution embodies my basic, fundamental rights. I certainly don't expect it to be changed by the same level of authority that my licence fees can be changed. The United States' Constitution can only be changed with the agreement of 75 percent of the states and a similar percentage (or maybe it's 66 2 percent) of both houses of Congress. The patriation of the Canadian Constitution did not fail on the principles it embodied, but on its formula for making changes thereto. Our Constitution demands to be revered (and protected) similarly.

If I can believe everything I have heard, we all seem to agree with the changes the Government presently intends to make to the Constitution. I would say a compromise, therefore, cannot be difficult to arrive at. The Government should make its intended constitutional changes under the Constitution as it is presently written. However, the Government should add one other change to its list of intended changes, or agree that no additional changes to our Constitution will be made until this change is adopted: a formula or process setting out how our Constitution can be changed in the future. This formula or process should indeed be the subject of public debate. Our present Government would then do what our former Government should have done when it had the authority to do it -- because it is the right thing to do for Bermuda.

Looking to the future? No more racist comments, please. It might also be helpful if we cut back on the avalanche of racial references too - please. I cannot use my name and I find it difficult to think of any other name that would describe me so well, so just say I'm...

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE City of Hamilton