WHILE not claiming to understand all the labyrinthine complexities of the Barnett Formula and the ongoing fiscal framework negotiations, I believe that John Swinney is right to reject any method of funding allocation which might be to the future detriment of Scotland by several billions of pounds per year (“Deadlock over fiscal deal”, The Herald, February 9).

It seems that this situation could arise if the overall growth of Scotland’s population was slower than that of the rest of the UK. That is something over which no devolved Scottish government could have any control or influence, and it would therefore be irresponsible for Mr Swinney to agree to such a methodology. I am surprised that the three opposition parties at Holyrood seem so eager to adopt an allocation system which would clearly not be in the best interests of Scotland.

Of course this impasse has arisen only because the very limited fiscal powers to be transferred, under the terms of the Smith Commission proposals and the subsequent Scotland Act, fall far short of what is really needed. What was promised under the notorious last-minute Vow signed by all three UK party leaders just before the Referendum was “full fiscal autonomy”. To devolve such limited control only of income tax rates and bands, while leaving all other major taxes raised in Scotland such as corporation tax and VAT to continue to go direct to the Whitehall Treasury, is the worst of all possible deals.

If the result of the stand-off is that the Scotland Act is not ratified by the Scottish Parliament and the new powers are not devolved, it will make very little difference to us. The new powers would have been of little use in protecting the poorest Scots families from the effects of further austerity cuts coming down the line. The apparently uncaring and heartless UK Tory Government at Westminster seems hell-bent on cutting benefits and support for the poorest, while providing tax cuts to the highest earners and letting major international companies away with derisory tax settlements.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

I DO not think David Torrance “Tax plan hostility highlights warped world of Holyrood”, The Herald, February appreciates the irony of quoting Tom Leher’s ”Oh the white folks hate the black folks and the black folks hate the white folks”. His whole article was devoted to hatred of the nationalists.

He lauds Kezia Dugdale’s tax plan, as she is specifically putting forward an ill thought-out and unworkable scheme she would never have to implement.

He then castigates John Swinney for adhering to the terms of the Smith Commission. That commission consisted of representatives from all parties, where the vote of an unelected Tory, Adam Tompkins, carried the same weight as the Scottish Finance Secretary, John Swinney. This commission was set up after the so-called Vow. John Swinney is carrying out the remit from that commission that there should be “no detriment” to either Scotland or the Treasury. One is never surprised that this principle should be slanted towards the Treasury.

Mr Torrance is an adherent of the Union, and the difference between him and the Yes campaign is that those who voted Yes wish to be governed by the Scots, and those who voted No preferred to be governed by the English.

Jim Lynch,

42Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

PINSTRIPE was very selective in the data he presented to your readers (“Change needed for all to get fair deal from Union”, The Herald, February 8). As a senior member of the financial services sector the contributor should have known that there is also a right-hand section to a ledger. Here are several factors missing from that section:

Ninety-two per cent of the subsidy bill paid to the renewable industry is paid by Welsh consumers together with their cousins living east of Offa's Dyke. Had Scotland voted Yes then this arrangement would no longer be legal and their £15 billion annual contribution would have to be paid by the Scots – an increase of £6,000 a year per household.

The crash in the price for a barrel of oil would result in an annual £9 billion tax bill for Scottish taxpayers which is currently supported by the Welsh and their cousins. Add in the introduction of an £8 billion a year bill to cover the introduction of full fiscal autonomy and the combined costs would be an additional tax increase of around £7,000 a year per household.

Then there is the £3 billion cost claimed by the Finance Secretary through introducing the new powers to Holyrood since the Welsh and their cousins will have better economic growth than the Scots and it can be seen that the deal from the Union has prevented southern austerity plunging into Holyrood penury. This shows that readers need to see both sides of a ledger.

Ian Moir,

79 Queen Street, Castle Douglas.

PINSTRIPE, provocative as usual, reckons that London gains inordinately relative to other cities because it hosts our central government.

However, it's not just that plus all the trappings of supporting every other country's diplomatic services (on which he focuses), which sets London apart.

London's GDP per head (albeit uncorrected for enterprise earnings sent outwith the UK) is way ahead of any UK other city or locality. Indeed some regard the city as being the key powerhouse supporting the rest of us with its emphasis on the financial sector, plus substantial manufacturing, life sciences, engineering and creative arts sectors.

This leaves us with a quandary: how can we achieve anywhere London' s prosperity in any city given our extended land area and limited economic activities, which used to be centred on oil and whisky with support services and food as runners-up but are now much restricted? Pinstripe's notion of basing the UK's upper house in Glasgow does not exactly swell the coffers. Let us hope that our majority party leaders in Holyrood can find a better way forward.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.