IT is all very laudable for Labour's Scottish leader to propose "holding the SNP's feet to the fire" with his policy of employing 1,000 extra nurses, 500 GPs and £200m to improve cancer treatment, especially when he expects the funding to come from his UK party's mansion tax, the proceeds from which would came mainly from the English home counties.

In his shoes, I would be concerned lest English taxpayers get to hear about it. After all, they already think they are subsidising us and they are not best pleased about it. They might even change their vote from Labour to Tory, which would deprive us of that English largesse.

So, in the absence of that extra funding, if he does carry out his Holyrood "challenge" to the SNP, he had better be prepared to state which other services in Scotland should be cut to make way for his proposals - just as Labour did when in power at Holyrood with the SNP in opposition.

He should not be impatient; from 2016, we would have access to the Calman tax proposals at Holyrood as well as what comes out of Smith post- May 7, so he could increase income tax to provide the necessary money. However, he would be well advised to check on whether or not the "extra" tax would be available, or whether the additional proceeds would be deducted from the block grant under Barnett, in which case our financial resources would not increase.

Bear in mind, the initial driver for the tax powers was for us to be more accountable, and nothing to do with extra tax proceeds. With the alleged advantage from Barnet still in place, the English would not vote for us having any further privilege.

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescen, Currie.

JIM Murphy, the prospective Member of Parliament, clearly didn't get far with the alphabet. He certainly lacks a grasp of "D-words" like "devolution" or "democracy".

We have a Scottish Government, elected by the people of Scotland, managing their way through a mandate that will last until May 2016. Now along comes Mr Murphy announcing that he will subvert these devolved democratic arrangements with a Westminster manifesto stuffed with goodies he promises to push - without any Scottish mandate - through Holyrood. He is perilously close to threatening to attempt some form of coup.

As a Green Party member, I have been bemused by the way in which the self-styled "Unionist" parties insist on raking up division (a "D-word" they do understand). As he talks of displacing the devolved mandate of Holyrood with an imposition from the Westminster club he is so intent on re-joining, Mr Murphy's confusion is stunning. Homer has the D-word juste - "Doh!"

Simon Clark,

182 Hyndland Road, Glasgow.

IN arguing that balancing the political books should be essentially no more difficult than balancing the household budget, Iain AD Mann is, I fear, being innocently optimistic (Letters, April 20).

The members of a household have to earn, or qualify for, the money that forms the household income. It is real money; it can be touched, seen and smelled. Even if only on paper it can be reconciled fairly precisely, and the sums made to add up. Someone in the household takes responsibility for the overall management of the household budget.

Government departments, in contrast, do not have to do anything for the money they spend. It flows effortlessly to them from those honest and law-abiding citizens who choose to pay their dues. Consequently, there is no sense of ownership and, other than in a purely nominal sense, no one person in any department is ever seriously called to account for the management of, or discrepancies in, the budget.

In the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), for instance, any attempt to reconcile the figures is fatally beset by factors such as fraud, overpayments and underpayments of benefits, all variety of departmental errors and the constantly spiralling costs of unrealistic and protracted vanity projects which add no value other than enriching armies of business consultants and private contractors. Resolving comparable issues in a family budget would probably be relatively quick and simple. In a monolithic government department it is virtually impossible.

It is little wonder that the National Audit Office has been unable to give its unqualified approval to the DWP's accounts for 16 years in a row. For the Ministry of Defence the figure is five years. The chances of any improvement in this situation are extremely slim and we, the electorate, are mere spectators.

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.

SO the Prime Minister, whose cruel policies have led directly to the existence of a multiplicity of food banks the length and breadth of Scotland, has come up with the "Carlisle principle" ("Cameron says rest of the UK must not 'lose out'", The Herald, April 20). The headmaster will be giving the Scottish Government a report card every year, letting us know the impact of devolved decisions upon the rest of the UK. I wonder why it wasn't in the manifesto, published only last week.

Poor Mr Cameron. In a desperate bid to charm English Tories with just over two weeks to go until the General Election, he decides on another round of Jock bashing. My heart goes out to him and his ilk. Having won victory in last September's referendum, his celebrations were cut short. No sooner were the ballots boxes put away than the membership of the SNP spiked, then continued to rise inexorably. Now, seven months on, it looks as if those irritating Scots might be calling the shots after all. Oh dear.

Christine Goldie,

3 Canniesburn Road, Bearsden.

NICOLA Sturgeon says that whether there is another referendum on independence is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide. How will she know when we've decided - is she going to hold a referendum?

Alex Macintyre,

44 Thrums Avenue,

Bishopbriggs.