Devolution of taxes must match responsibilities of Holyrood

The central proposal of the Unionist parties is to devolve tax powers related to the Scottish Parliament's responsibilities for health and other public services. The principle of providing full tax and spend control to the Scottish Parliament to fund its responsi­bilities at least offers a logical and coherent position to people in Scotland. What would delivering this principle require in practice?

The Government Revenue and Expenditure in Scotland (GERS) figures for 2012/13 indicate that spending by the Scottish Govern­ment and local authorities was £38.5 billion. Full devolution of income tax would have provided only £10.6bn (28 per cent) of this budget, with already-devolved taxes adding a further £4.6 billion (12 per cent). This would leave a tax gap of £23.1bn to be made up from other taxes to adhere to the principle of devolving taxes against the current responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. The tax gap could be made up through giving the Scottish Parliament control of National Insurance, corporation tax, North Sea revenues and various duties and levies. This would leave Westminster with the funding for its own continuing responsibilities from the remaining Scottish tax income, particularly VAT, which, under European law, cannot be devolved.

The pro-Union parties have proposed that the UK Government "assign" elements of Scottish taxes to the Scottish Parliament - but this is just another way for Westminster to control grants to Scotland from taxes raised in Scotland. They have also suggested restricting tax devolution to income tax. This would poison Scottish and UK politics. Politicians would line up to say that the Scottish Government could raise income tax to deal with any financial problems - in nursery and further education provision, health and care services, welfare benefit cuts past and future and any other shortfalls. But, at Westminster, other than the recent additional rate, Chancellors since 1979 have only ever cut income tax rates, never raised them. UK Governments have instead changed personal allowances and reliefs, and linked income tax reductions to changes in child, family and old age tax credits and National Insurance. The pro-Union parties are proposing to retain all of those powers at Westminster.

The Smith Commission should accept the principle that tax devolution should fully match devolved responsibilities, whether this is restricted to the existing functions of the Scottish Parliament, or extended to meet the aspiration for home rule powers (including welfare) within the UK through devo-max, which is the wish of the Scottish people.

Andrew Reid,

Armadale, Shore Road,

Cove,

Argyll.

Since Gladstone and Lloyd George, for more than 100 years, the Liberal Party have strongly supported Home Rule. So why do I now read that the LibDems want to reserve welfare and the control of 40 per cent of tax raised in Scotland to Westminster ("Peace breaks out over Holyrood as parties vow to work together", The Herald, October 11)?

Home Rule is devo-max, which means that all powers, except defence and foreign affairs, must come to Holyrood. It must also mean further local devolution to regions and communities to control, manage and benefit from their own resources.

Dr Michael Foxley,

2 Achaphubuil,

by Fort William.

THE ill-judged vow by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition is now casting a large shadow over Lord Smith's commission with the Deputy First Minister's assertion that Scotland should gain "maxi­mum devolution" ("Sturgeon sets out SNP's stall with demand for devo-max", The Herald, October 11).

It also appears that her demands will allow the Scottish Parliament to call an independence referendum without requiring legal guarantees from Westminster. So only a month after a clear majority No vote which rejected the Scotland's Future White Paper, Nicola Sturgeon's wish list, with the exception of foreign policy, defence and currency, could well be granted.

I wonder how many of the two million people who voted No even considered such a possibility?

I am now very concerned that the Scottish Parliament will be granted a level of powers way beyond its competence, particularly in the realms of pensions, welfare benefits, virtually all taxation, and even broadcasting.

With the Smith Commission due to send heads of agreement to West­minster by November 30, time for discussion, compromise and agree­ment is very short, in marked contrast to the two years available to establish the much more modest arrangements for devolution.

Ronald J Sandford,

1 Scott Garden,

Kingsbarns,

Fife.

THE structural integrity of the Union must be the first priority. No additional powers should be given to the Scottish Parliament which in any way adversely affect the Union.

The referendum was decisive in favour of the preservation of the Union; and there is no likelihood in the next decade that anything will alter that position. The bonds between the countries of the Union should be cemented by every available means during the next decade.

Unfortunately this has not been understood by the English, who foolishly believe that the problem is over for all time, which means that they will probably do nothing to improve their relations with the Scots and the others. David Cameron has been on the whole a very good Prime Minister, in very difficult circumstances. It is a pity that he has not understood the structural strength of the Union and that offering widespread powers to the Scottish Parliament simply weakens it and delays the separation.

The SNP wanted a fairer society for Scotland. The next Prime Minister must work for a fairer UK, and that will probably be at the head of another coalition. If this is successful, powers already assigned to Scotland could actually be withdrawn if the Union would be strengthened by it.

The vast majority of those in the Union want it preserved and that is never likely to change. We must set out to improve it by every means.

William Scott,

23 Argyle Place, Rothesay.