The report that Lord Smith could recommend full income tax powers to Holyrood ("Murphy to support handing full income tax powers to Holyrood," The Herald, November 25) suggests that his Commission is about to follow the proposals made by Lord Strathclyde of the Conservatives' devolution commission.

This would mean that full income tax powers would not be devolved to Holyrood, as Westminster would retain control over various elements of income, including savings, dividends and capital gains.

The UK Government would therefore keep control over those elements of income tax bringing voter favour, particularly through the raising of personal allowances and the starting rate for tax. But Labour and the Tories would be free of the political minefield of income tax rate setting, which has meant that, apart from the additional rate for those earning over £150,000, no Labour or Tory Chancellor has increased either basic or higher rates of income tax in the last 35 years.

Still, the proposals have already allowed Scottish Labour leadership contender Jim Murphy to say: "If a Scottish Government wants to spend more, it will have to raise more. The buck will stop in Scotland." That neatly sums up the cynical motivation of the Westminster parties.

Devolving politically toxic income tax is already being spun in advance as meeting the pre-referendum "Vow". But it fails to come anywhere close to the home rule and federalism promised publicly by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling on behalf of the No Thanks campaign. The proposals would leave Westminster in control of National Insurance, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has made clear is now just another kind of income tax, of Corporation Tax and North Sea oil revenues, which are central to Scotland's economic management, and of VAT and other duties and levies, which are crucial to public finances and generate substantial tax income.

These other taxes account for 70 per cent of all tax raised in Scotland. Held at a UK level, they will give Westminster control of 60 per cent of the budget for Holyrood's responsibilities, including health, education and other public services. As planned, the Scottish Government will be hounded to make good the damaging effects of future Westminster cuts and welfare reforms, which will continue to be UK government responsibilities. This is indeed all about passing the buck to Holyrood, whilst Westminster keeps power over most of the bucks.

The Smith Commission will make its proposals shortly. People in Scotland will have their say at the General Election in May.

Andrew Reid,

'Armadale,' Shore Road,

Cove, Argyll.

David Torrance claims it was ironic for Alex Salmond to criticise the BBC despite their having broadcast a "generally flattering" portrait of him only a few days earlier ("Tribal struggles return on view of the Promised Land," The Herald, November 24). His observation seems to me to express an overly simplistic view of the symbiosis between politicians and the media, and is itself made all the more ironic by the fact that virtually the only unflattering contributor to the programme in question was none other than David Torrance.

Old habits die hard and I can understand why David Torrance, faced with the prospect (albeit remote) that his favourite target might actually depart the Scottish political scene altogether, might now be anxious to find new prey. Even so, he appears to have swooped on the obvious choice, Nicola Sturgeon, with undue haste and dubious justification. Commenting on her speech at the recent SNP rally at the Glasgow Hydro he accuses her, in fairly trenchant terms, of tribalism, of going for the jugular, traducing her political opponents and of lauding her own party. But isn't that what politicians do in front of their supporters at political gatherings? It's not a phenomenon I care for, or that I think reflects particularly well on its practitioners, but it's what UK politicians of all stripes, encouraged by their speech writers and spin doctors, have been dishing up to us for years. And the media seem to lap it up. Until a true statesman emerges, with the courage to break this cheap mould, we're stuck with it.

It's one thing, in the chamber at Holyrood, for the new First Minister to commit to an inclusive and ecumenical platform, but I hardly think Nicola's supporters would have cheered her to the rafters for serving them up the same menu at a rally of 12,000 people. Talking of which, it smacks to me of picky desperation for David Torrance to cavil as he does about whether the attendance figure was more than 10,000 or less than 12,000. It was big, that's the point.

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.

Reading Bob Holman's Agenda article ("History can teach us a lesson as citizens demand a fairer society," The Herald, November 25), I am struck by the stark contrast between his selfless devotion to the less fortunate in society and that of the various "big hitters" in the Labour Party, a party he professes to still hold dear.

Here is a man who "walks the walk" while so many others in his party can barely "talk the talk," and then only if it enhances their personal standing.

It requires a prodigious leap of imagination to comprehend that Bob Holman is in the same party as Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy.

Bob Holman is a man with, it appears, boundless love for his fellow man and, unlike so many former Labour voters like myself, he still harbours a deep affection for the party of his youth. It does him credit but is, I fear, misplaced loyalty.

James Mills,

29 Armour Square, Johnstone.