MARTIN Redfern’s letter (November 24) in response to Wednesday’s Budget eloquently sets out why the need for Scotland’s independence is directly proportional to the control exercised by Westminster; and in particular Tory Chancellors, who have for generations drummed into us that public services are to be frowned upon and that having to pay for them is an attack on your prosperity.

Sadly, one consequence of that is the growth in the idea that it’s somehow okay to be selfish and self-serving, so long as the "I’m alright Jack" philosophy works for you and your family. The problem is that it only works for those who can actually afford it, creating a wedge in society which widens because both sides come to resent the existence of the other. Thus we create a mindset that rails at the idea of an increase in taxation; but at the same time endlessly berates the poor state of the health service or education (though bizarrely we can still find the dosh for Trident); and meantime genuine claimants of State benefit are treated as scroungers.

The independence referendum of 2014 taught me for the first time that it is actually possible for the grass-roots to take control of the weeds. Sadly the Establishment narrowly won the day, but from the evidence I’ve seen since then, a very significant proportion of Scottish society has by no means gone back into its box. If anything, their faith and strength of feeling has grown in the hope that we can create a country and system of government which teaches us that caring for each other produces infinitely better results than caring only for ourselves.

Graham A Fordyce,

28 Iain Road, Bearsden.

NICOLA Sturgeon appears to have been forced into applying the brakes on tax by the clever moves of Chancellor Philip Hammond ("Sturgeon plans tax breaks for Scots first-time buyers", The Herald, November 24).

The whole policy of taxation has been handled very badly by the SNP. Land and Building Transaction Tax has affected the housing market negatively and the further increase in the threshold for 40 per cent taxpayers in England has placed the SNP in a very exposed general taxation position.

Any further tax burden on the middle class in the upcoming Scottish budget cannot be a positive move, yet Ms Sturgeon has firmly committed her party to just such a policy.

The opposition parties might just read the writing on the wall, except for the Greens who don't seem to have any upper limit. Ms Sturgeon and Finance Secretary Derek Mackay may well have a few sleepless nights in the next three weeks.

Taxation is a very slippery slope. Are there any more sharp turns ahead or are the wheels coming off the SNP bus regardless?

Dr Gerald Edwards,

Broom Road, Glasgow.

AT First Minister’s Questions Ruth Davidson could not help herself as she sang the praises of Chancellor Philip Hammond, the day after the Westminster Budget was revealed ("First Minister mocked after insisting £2bn Tory Budge pledge is a con", The Herald, November 24). But Ms Davidson should have prepared better and taken the facts to the Holyrood chamber and not her interpretation of the facts.

The facts are that Scotland’s budget in real terms will be down some £200 million this year alone and the money Mr Hammond gave back to Scotland in his Budget is in part a loan and has strings attached. So Ms Davidson, try as you might, the facts speak louder than your misguided praises.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive,

Banknock, Falkirk.

THE Chancellor's Budget has as usual incurred the wrath of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who called the £2 billion allocation a "con" as the funds are earmarked for specific projects and cannot be used for the usual SNP spending nonsense.

There seems little point in giving Scotland additional funding if the SNP administration is to squander the money on hair-brained schemes like the baby boxes nobody wants and the very questionable Named Persons proposal which serves to undermine parental rights.

Dennis Forbes Grattan,

3 Mugiemoss Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen.

THE waiving of stamp duty for first-time buyers in England and Wales is expected by the Office of Budget Responsibility to cost the Treasury £3.2 billion, and only help an extra 3,500 households onto the housing ladder ("Hammond has the owners of empty homes and unused land in his sights", Budget Special, The Herald, November 23). At almost £1 million per household helped, it is clear that those short-changed by the Budget are all of those who will still be living in rented accommodation, and certainly not Scots. It would be far cheaper to simply build houses and give them away. Perhaps the Cabinet should be first in line for the extra maths education funding in the Budget.

It is advertised as a giveaway to young people, but house buyers have a fixed budget, and will bid up against each other until they run out of money. So house prices are expected to rise to absorb the entire cut in tax. The real winners are those that already own property, and wish to downsize. Namely people with adult children that have flown the nest, those looking to emigrate for a better life, or simply move out of London.

For almost everyone, housing is our largest expense, whether as a monthly rent check or over the lifetime of a mortgage. Every penny “invested” in a house would be better invested in the productive economy by buying shares, bonds or gilts. It is entirely backward that government should divert so much money and energy to driving up the price of houses, through these stamp duty cuts, and previous help to buy schemes, first-time buyer ISAs, freezing and capping council taxes, and ignoring capital gains. It should have the same focus on cutting the cost of housing as it does on the price of beer, wine, spirits, electricity, fuel, and cheap holidays abroad. Then we will see a better balanced economy close the productivity gap with France.

The Scottish Government should cut our Stamp Duty equivalent, Land and Buildings Transaction Tax, not to help those buyers who aren’t hiding behind offshore tax havens, but to make it easier to buy and sell property, and thus move when circumstances change. It, Council tax and non-domestic rates should all be phased out and replaced with a Land Value Tax, paid monthly not merely when a building is purchased. Taxing the land but not the house, office or factory above it will encourage productive investment, especially by the land banking house building companies. It cannot be avoided or evaded without forfeiting the claim of ownership of the land.

Alan Ritchie,

2/2 72 Waverley Street, Glasgow.