CLAIMS by Theresa May that a co-called “Brexit dividend” will help pay for a boost to NHS spending in England worth £20 billion a year within five years are highly disingenuous (“Sturgeon is urged to spend extra £2 billion on healthcare”, The Herald, June 18). The Tory chairwoman of the health committee, Sarah Wollaston, is absolutely right in calling this claim “tosh”.

The UK will continue to pay into the EU through the transition until the end of 2020 and will pay £20bn of the “divorce bill” through to 2028. In addition, the UK Government has committed to keep EU funding for agricultural subsidies, research and development and other key areas at the same level in the short-term. These are set figures so it will be at least 10 years before any so-called “Brexit dividend”, if it were ever to materialise, is to be realised. Add to that, if the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts are accurate, the public finances are set to be £15bn a year worse off by 2021, or £300 million a week.

Mrs May must come clean over whether she intends to finance this increased spend through higher taxes, increased borrowing or a combination of the two. Interestingly, if taxes are set to rise, which they will clearly have to, it is staggering hypocrisy for the Tories to have attacked the Scottish Government’s boosting of the NHS through progressive tax changes and then look to hike taxes themselves.

Alex Orr,

Flat 2, 77 Leamington Terrace,

Edinburgh.

MARY Rolls began her letter (June 18) contending that Theresa May “has evolved despite widespread opposition from politicians, bureaucrats and the media from politician into statesman”.

I see nothing statesmanlike in the power-grabbing politician who declared herself a Remainer during the EU referendum but was quick to announce that “Brexit means Brexit” on becoming Prime Minister and who emphatically assured us that there would be no snap General Election, before calling one which left her seriously weakened and at the mercy of the DUP.

Mrs Rolls suggests that “the current pressure from Scotland must be a serious aggravation of the stress under which the Prime Minister is manfully labouring”; would that be the pressure from ignoring the Scottish Parliament’s opposition to the EU Withdrawal Bill and the contempt she has shown to devolution? The pressure from thousands of people who have joined the SNP over the past week? Or perhaps it is the pressure from within Mrs May’s Cabinet and from her backbenchers under which she is having to manfully labour that is aggravating her stress.

However, Mrs Rolls is right that, if the Prime Minister was forced to resign, it wouldn’t be much of a benefit to Scotland; she would simply be replaced by another Tory who, like the incumbent, has no mandate to impose any of their poisonous policies on Scotland.

Ruth Marr,

99 Grampian Road,

Stirling.