Letters: We'll never have a fair society while we're tied to Westminster

All the signs are that Boris Johnson (born in New York) and multi-millionaire Rishi Sunak want to emulate America. Those who are born into wealth or who are fortunate in life’s lottery will be fine; those who struggle will have the bare minimum to keep body and soul together. That is a choice made by this Westminster Government, it’s not an inevitability.

I prefer the models adopted by some of our European neighbours, especially in the north. Tax rates are higher on those who can afford to pay, those who have been lucky in life; state intervention to tackle poverty and the problems that come with it is greater. The outcome is a more equal and, from most analyses, a happier society.

Scotland has a choice. We can carry on as we are, with an acceptance that the poor and disadvantaged will always be with us; or we can get serious about building a fairer and more equal society, with as many as possible benefiting from the wealth of our nation. What’s clear is that we’ll never make the changes needed to build a better society while tied to Westminster and its regular succession of Tory governments.

Doug Maughan, Dunblane.

WILL SNP STICK TO ITS TAX GUNS?

THE SNP lauded its introduction of the 19p income tax rate to help those on low earnings. This rate however has a cap of only applying up to £14,667. Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, has now introduced the same rate but it will apply up to £50,270 ("Sunak pledges tax break to two million Scots workers", The Herald, March 24). The SNP has been keen since the Chancellor’s announcement to say that it also has a 19p starter rate but has kept quiet on the top limit for it. Those in Scotland currently earning between £43,663 and £50,000 pay 41% – a substantial difference.

When the new rate is implemented in 2024, what will the SNP do? Stick to its guns of taxing those in this bracket this higher rate and risk employees seeking work in England, or give Scottish teachers, junior doctors, office staff and others in this bracket the same level of taxation? Scotland already struggles to get staff for our education, NHS and business sectors without discouraging talented people and businesses looking to invest in Scotland.

Time will no doubt tell.

Jane Lax, Aberlour.

SCOTTISH MPS LONG BEEN EUNUCHS

WHEN Peter Russell (Letters, March 25) writes of “the pygmies of Holyrood or the Scottish eunuchs of Westminster”, and in particular the latter, does he include his own party – Anas Sarwar, Jackie Baillie et al – or only the SNP? Is Douglas Ross excluded from this opinion? Or Ian Murray?

More seriously, does he have in mind some earlier time, lost in the mists of history, when Scottish MPs were influential, were not eunuchs, at Westminster? Currently, MPs from Scottish constituencies are nine per cent of Westminster MPs. In 1997 that same representation was almost 11%. Does Mr Russell consider the difference between being influential and the fate of the eunuch to be represented by those two numbers?

Of course, in 1997 Scottish MPs were influential – Gordon Brown, Robin Cook, George Robertson, John Reid et al (and how many of those are “person[s] of accomplishment and achievement” other than in politics?) However, was this not a reflection of internal Labour politics rather than anything to do with, until devolution, Westminster being the "only game in town for Scottish politicians"? Is it not then true to say that with their often-irrelevant level of representation, particularly when Scotland has voted for another party, that Scottish MPs have always been eunuchs, other than via successful politicking within their own party?

Earlier on he claims that if the Scottish electorate voted for SNP MSPs “to do things well, or even competently … the SNP would be much less successful at the polls”. At the last Holyrood election constituency vote (electors vote for a party when they vote List), the SNP won nearly 48% of the vote. This is more than Conservative and Labour combined, so what does that say of them? Mr Russell and those of his opinion would be better served trying to understand the electorate, rather than slandering them.

Alsasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

* PETER A Russell’s letter was a derogatory analysis of devolution and one I totally disagree with.

He suggested that voters voting for an SNP MSP do not expect them to be competent constituency representatives – but many SNP MSPs work very long and hard in their constituents' interest. Increased majorities speak for themselves; in my constituency the SNP MSP received the largest vote for any candidate ever in the Falkirk West constituency (21,492) and was re-elected for a fourth time.

It may come as a surprise to Mr Russell, but in our parliament we have many well-educated and professional MSPs who have the interest and welfare of their constituents at the forefront of their reasons to give up their careers and work in the interest of making a difference.

Catriona C Clark, Banknock.

THE VOTERS NEED TO GET ANGRY

DESPITE Richard Allison's accurate description of Scotland's demise under the SNP and Greens (Letters, March 23) the most recent poll I can find (Panelbase, October 2021) forecasts the SNP vote share to rise from 32 per cent in the 2017 council elections to a 45% forecast in May. So no bloody nose there, it would seem. Mind you, the same pollster forecast a 46% SNP vote share in March 2017, so perhaps there's hope.

But are people really angry enough to get off their settees and vote them out? In each if the last six elections since 2014 no more than 1.4 million out of 2m No voters in 2014 have voted for the pro-UK parties.

If even 100k of the missing 600k get out and vote for pro-UK candidates that could have a disastrous effect on the SNP vote in an election where the STV voting system effectively awards seats by vote share, not the vote-splitting "winner takes all" in a General Election.

The problem in Scotland, however, is the vast majority of our 4.3m registered voters are still oblivious to what is going on, wouldn't know a defunct Ferguson ferry if it docked in their back garden, and the opposition parties continually fail to breach this wall of apathy with any compelling, positive, convincing message.

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

WHO WILL COME TO THEIR SENSES?

NEIL Mackay’s article on the current state of the SNP ("If the SNP cares about indy, it should shut up about it for now", The Herald, March 22) was, in my view, spot on.

However, what is very concerning is that since the referendum in 2014 the SNP has on a number of occasions tried to convince the Scottish electorate that the majority has wanted to cancel our union with the rest of the UK.

Even when the SNP was riding high around 50 per cent of us were concerned about the realities of the situation; now that Mr Mackay has highlighted the mess that it is in will the other 50% now come to their senses, or simply dream on ?

W MacIntyre, East Kilbride.

LET'S HAVE AN OPEN ABORTION DEBATE

IRENE Munro (Letters, March 24) presents a refreshingly balanced narrative on abortion. We would all wish to avoid the crass politicisation of the abortion debate in the United States, whereby the subject has become something of a political football, with harsh and ungracious rhetoric on both sides. That said, the fact remains that serious debate about the ethics of abortion remains all but off limits in Scottish politics.

This is unfortunate, in that it sometimes seems as if legitimate concerns about the rights and welfare of unborn children are shut down and ignored. It would be heartening indeed if our MSPs, regardless of their own views, felt able to cultivate an environment whereby those with deeply-held concerns about abortion, as well as for the welfare of mothers, were heard.

Michael Veitch, Parliamentary Officer, CARE for Scotland, Glasgow.