Letters: If Davidson were First Minister, she would be demanding extra powers

On NHS funding, her agenda is, apparently, for the UK Chancellor to forego any notion of continuing his trend to further increase income tax allowance thresholds, and instead to put the available spare money towards increasing funding of the NHS. But the problem is that he no longer has jurisdiction, or influence over Scottish income tax, which has been devolved to Holyrood.

That means that the Barnett formula would not apply in that instance – it would work only were he to increase income tax in both countries, as hitherto, which he cannot now do. His spare money in England would come from identifiable savings outside of the NHS, or from economic growth in England. So, there is no Barnett read-across to Scotland.

Therefore, if Ms Davidson’s remonstrations are successful, and she were in power from 2021, she would have to decide the extent to which there was spare money available from cuts outside of the Scottish NHS, or there was growth in the Scottish economy to match the English position – or, of course, she could increase Scottish income tax in order to keep upsides with the development in England.

I suspect that, if she ever achieved her ambition to become First Minister, the first thing she would be demanding is more powers for Holyrood.

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie.

I DOUBT whether Vogue Magazine itself would consider it provides an in-depth commentary on contemporary UK politics. Ruth Davidson’s appearance in the Vogue Top 25 Influential Women list (“ Davidson looks to be in Vogue as Tory is included in top 25 women list”, The Herald, May 31) is perhaps not unexpected as she has featured before in a complimentary article in the magazine and as far as Vogue are concerned she is the UK Prime Minister designate.

As far as I can see the Vogue list is subjective, not the result of a public vote. Being a Neanderthal, most of the power-25 I have perhaps understandably never heard of before but there are at least two of whom I wish I never had. I wonder why you felt it necessary to add weight to a subjective opinion carried in a glossy magazine by broadcasting Ms Davidson’s appearance in the Vogue wish list to an audience wider than those fashionistas who do more than look wistfully at the pictures in the magazine.

The fault probably lies with me, perhaps I should be subscribing to Vogue, Hello! and the likes to keep au fait with the latest nuanced changes in the political climate. Then again, why bother if you will repeat a potted version of what the glossies print.

David J Crawford,

1300 Great Western Road, Glasgow.

AS I read all the comment and snide remarks about Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission I cannot help but wonder as to how many of these contributors have actually read the document? There is no doubt in my mind that Scotland would have had a hard row to hoe to establish our independence if there had been a Yes vote in 2014, but at least we would have been fighting positively. As it is, we now have a bourach of someone else’s making and we are denied the tools; the ground keeps shifting under our feet, depending on which member of the right-wing cabal is in the ascendant.

Interesting to see Ruth Davidson trying to move towards the centre ground, she must have knowledge denied the rest of us. What is going on?

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

ALEX Gallagher (Letters, May 31) suggests that those who voted No in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum should be regarded as patriotic Scots in view of his interpretation of the Growth Commission report. As a supporter of Scottish independence, could I just say that patriotism is well down my list of priorities and I suspect that I share this with a goodly number of those who would like to see Scotland determine its own future. As far as I’m concerned, patriotism belongs in the same backyard as the tartan tat peddled by those who would prefer Scotland to be seen mainly as a tourist theme park.

More to the point is the arithmetic of the House of Commons where legislation will always be in England’s favour because their MPs make up the vast majority of the chamber. I cannot understand why supporters of the Union always choose to ignore this basic fact. No real social and political progress can be made in Scotland under those restrictive circumstances.

Dave Stewart,

6 Blairatholl Avenue, Glasgow.

THE ill-informed assertions about an independent Scotland from Labour Councillor Alex Gallacher should not be allowed to pass without comment.

He predicts that Scotland after independence would have “no currency, no central bank, no foreign reserves” and a large deficit.

Plans are already being made to set up a Scottish currency and a Scottish Central Bank. On independence, Scotland would be expected to accept its proportionate share of the UK’s deficit, but this share would be relatively small and quite manageable. Scotland, by the same token, would be entitled to its proportionate share of all UK assets, and this would immediately provide substantial reserves. Add to this the fact that Scotland would no longer be paying its share of the enormous cost of renewing Trident or of the equally huge cost of maintaining and restoring the Palace of Westminster, or the cost of sending 59 MPs to Westminster, and this country would not only be much better off financially but also able to set policies for Scotland that would reflect better the needs of the Scottish people.

Peter Swain,

Tyme Cottage, Innerwick, Dunbar

That SNP deputy leader hopeful Julie Hepburn claims independence is “a piece of bureaucracy” (“SNP deputy leader candidate says breaking up the UK is ‘bureaucracy’”, The Herald, May 31) shows a startling disrespect for democracy - not only for the majority who oppose her but also for those in the Yes camp who fought so passionately in 2014.

Let us hope Ms Hepburn is less cavalier in her approach to tackling the decline in Scottish education, the NHS and other public services.

Martin Redfern,

Woodcroft Road, Edinburgh.