YOUR editorial (“Pain ahead from council cuts deal”, The Herald, November 10) sets out admirably the dilemma that Scottish local government faces in dealing with the cuts imposed on it by John Swinney. But does no one see the irony of these cuts, enforced by threats of great tranches of money being withheld if councils as much as hint at opposing them, and Mr Swinney’s position of negotiating with Westminster to gain a fiscal framework with “no detriment” to his own finances?

Oh that Mr Swinney possessed the consistency to apply the same rules of “no detriment” to his frankly bullying and blackmailing relationship with Scottish local authorities.

Alex Gallagher,

Labour councillor, North Ayrshire Council,

12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

IT was predicted in 1997 that devolution would stop at Edinburgh and leave Scotland with impoverished, impotent local councils and a serious grass-roots democratic deficit.

So the brutal way in which John Swinney has forced councils to accept £775m being stripped from their already inadequate budgets will surprise few outside “The 45”.

As usual the SNP government blames Westminster but that tired old saw is starting to sound like the BBC blaming every conceivable weather event on “global warming”.

Rev Dr John Cameron,

10 Howard Place, St Andrews.

IAIN AD Mann (Letters, February 10) is quite correct in arguing that failure to ratify the Scotland Bill would be no great loss. Rather than have a partial transfer of tax-raising powers we should demand that all fiscal powers are transferred to the Scottish Government. The only restriction on these powers would have to be that, under European legislation, the same rate of VAT would have to apply across the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government would make a contribution to Westminster in respect of the costs of shared facilities. John Swinney could work out a method whereby Scotland can meet its share and the Barnett Formula could be replaced by the Swinney Formula.

Full devolution of tax-raising powers would prove once and for all whether or not we are able to stand on our own two feet. Such a proposal might not be in our best interests, but it would mean that Scotland would have to take full responsibility for its own affairs and manage the economy accordingly.

It should be possible to introduce such a change for the start of the 2019-2020 tax year since the referendum in 2014 was held on the premise that Scotland would have become an independent country by the end of next month.

Sandy Gemmill,

40 Warriston Gardens, Edinburgh

I TAKE exception to a comment from your correspondent Jim Lynch (Letters, February 10). He says that “those who voted Yes wish to be governed by the Scots, and those who voted No preferred to be governed by the English”. While he might not appreciate the insult inferred there, let us try to clarify the position.

As one who favours Scotland having a thriving positive place within the UK, I am happy that the layers of government we have give plenty of opportunity for the best interests of Scotland and its people to be represented - whether at Westminster, a parliament with significant Scottish voices and influence, not only in its SNP members, or the powerful devolved Holyrood parliament soon to have far greater control over Scottish matters. In addition, we have our local government, which if Mr Swinney would only take the financial shackles off, also has enormous potential for positive impact through the critical services it provides.

As for the nationality of those elected to represent us in each of these democratic institutions, I am completely neutral, which I hope Mr Lynch will agree with when he reflects on what he has said. We can differ on where the best constitutional future for Scotland lies, but please keep nationality out of it.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

I NOTE the speculation around David Cameron standing down as Prime Minister and the suggestion by some that Ruth Davidson would be a good candidate to succeed him (“Future up in the air? No, I won’t be PM”, The Herald, February 10).

Ms Davidson rules herself out of running, apparently because she is put off, not by the demands and challenges of the job, but by the “loneliness of the highest office. I would suggest that if she ever seriously contemplates seeking the position then she should seek to comply with what I view as a pre-requisite of the job by getting herself directly elected somewhere.

After all her record so far in that regard is far from spectacular. In the Glasgow North East constituency by- election in 2009 she came third and in the same constituency in the General Election in 2010 she came fourth. In the Glasgow Kelvin constituency in the Scottish Parliamentary election of 2011 she came fourth, but gained a seat through the Glasgow regional list.

There will be a lot of pancakes flipped and pies seen in the sky before Ms Davidson becomes Prime Minister.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.