Letters: Why do indy supporters care nothing about the economics?

Since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister this SNP Government has been cavalier with taxpayers' hard-earned money with so many ill-fated and expensive projects. The astonishing thing is that support for independence appears to be maintained. I can only assume that supporters care nothing for the economics and finance of the fight for separation, are happy for money to be wasted and are totally taken in by the teenage emotion of some sort of “freedom”. The FM said in September 2016 that “independence is more important than oil, balance sheets and national wealth” and clearly supporters have bought into this shocking and irresponsible thought process.

I saw a comment this week by an independence supporter who genuinely believes that Scotland will be independent in October 2023 and we will be in the EU the following week. The naivety of these people is astonishing and it is time they woke up to what Ms Sturgeon has inflicted on Scotland.
Douglas Cowe, Newmachar

We need public funding of the parties

I’M pleased to learn from Peter A Russell (Letters, October 6) that Labour agreed at its recent conference that proportional representation “should be included in its next General Election manifesto”. Whether that aspiration actually comes into effect is, at best, doubtful.

Mr Russell was responding to a powerful and interesting article by Adam Tomkins (“Be bold, Sir Keir: this is your chance to break the mould”, The Herald, October 5). Mr Tomkins pointed out the weakness of first-past-the-post elections, which produce at Westminster “a regime that governs not for the public at large, but for its own small band of swivel-eyed true believers”. PR would produce a Parliament with more and smaller parties, with real debate about policy and compromises made by all involved; a vast improvement on the current system where the Chancellor can just walk into the House of Commons and sign the UK up to hundreds of billions of debt, without even running his plan past the Cabinet first.

Mr Tomkins criticised the Blair/Brown governments for not taking the opportunity to introduce PR when they had the power to do so. He’s right, of course, but I can’t see any governing party, sitting on a landslide majority, jettisoning the system that gave it that majority. Despite Mr Russell’s optimism, Sir Keir Starmer is likely to be exactly the same, putting party and personal advantage over the long-term national interest; I hope he proves me wrong.

Mr Tomkins might have mentioned another opportunity missed by the Blair/Brown governments: they could have introduced public funding of political parties, with no donations allowed. Some may object to the idea that their taxes would fund parties whose policies they opposed, but the system would be better than the one we have now. It would stop the Tories being in the pockets of their wealthy donors, and Labour in the pockets of the big trade unions. We might get a Parliament where MPs look to their constituents for information, ideas and support, and not to the backers who pull their strings.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane

Labour won't bring in PR

NOT often do I agree with Adam Tomkins but, as a long-time supporter of proportional representation, it was encouraging to see him advocate that Sir Keir Starmer, assuming Labour wins the next General Election, should reform the Westminster voting system.

Peter A Russell agrees and points out that the recent Labour Party conference mandated that PR should be included in its next General Election manifesto. Unfortunately, despite all the positive reasons outlined by Mr Tomkins, Sir Keir is opposed to the proposal and, like so many Labour Prime Ministers before him, has no intention of making it happen.

"Change the electoral system and you change politics," writes Mr Tomkins. And how badly we need to do just that, not just in the UK as a whole, but also in Scotland, where it is paralysed by Westminster and our constitutional debate. Given his stance on the latter, I'm surprised Mr Tomkins didn't suggest that PR at Westminster would also, in all probability, undermine the cause for independence, for a generation at least.
David Bruce, Troon

Tax cuts are not the answer

FOR some politicians and commentators, the solution to almost all economic problems is tax cuts. Guy Stenhouse seems firmly in that camp (“Scotland needs a low-tax regime too – and here’s where to start”, The Herald, October 5).

But it won’t work. We are, apparently, “sinking under the weight of our own spending”. Yet there are other countries with higher public spending and are both more economically successful and have a happier, healthier population.

The truth is that the alleged iron connection between low taxes and strong economic performance is a myth. UK companies were not crying out for the Chancellor’s cut in Corporation Tax. What they want above all is what they always have wanted, a stable economic and political environment. This has not been on offer since the 2010 election. Covid and the war in Ukraine are sadly and tragically real but are not the solid excuses for UK poor economic performance that the UK Government keeps telling us. The UK is the only G7 economy that has yet to grow past its pre-Covid peak yet the effects of both afflictions have been near-universal.

The real reasons are the legacy of austerity, Brexit and very low investment by both public and private sectors including investment in workforce training. All these can be traced back directly to Conservative economic policy. Another huge failure is in housing policy.

Instead of worshipping the false god of market purity and a very small band of epically-paid entrepreneurs and innovators, elevated to hero status, there is a better and proven path to improved economic performance. And it isn’t really that complicated. The fundamental need is to identify the basics and get them right. These are stability, infrastructure, which includes education and health and investment in employees and the tools to do the job. All have been neglected in favour of ideological mirages and the self-serving recommendations of large political donors.

However, rather than proven, effective solutions we seem destined to suffer those that are faith-based and only effectively serve a very small minority.
Alasdair Rankin, Edinburgh

• TAX cuts serve to benefit the economy by putting more of people's income at their own disposal. Naturally, they are of greater benefit to those people who pay more tax than others, the so-called rich. That is the entire point of the exercise. Tax cuts would have no effect otherwise.

Another good move would be to give businesses 100% tax relief for money spent on new equipment and machinery. That would stimulate the economy and create employment. The obsession we have with the "fairness" of anything to do with tax is a huge brake on our development.
Malcolm Parkin, Kinross

Two classes of citizen

ACCORDING to YouGov, 55 per cent of Scots think that the SNP administration should use its powers to follow His Majesty’s Government and cut the basic rate of income tax to 19p. Coincidentally – or not – that is about the same as those who both oppose holding a referendum next year and those Scots who actually pay income tax. It is scarcely surprising that those opposed to lowering the tax rate and those who are unsure about it – who do not have a dog in the fight – vote as they do. Let those who do actually pay tax pay more than those elsewhere in the UK, is their attitude.

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s policy of taking increasing numbers of people out of income tax seemed a good move, one that benefited the least well-off. But what it has done is to create two classes of citizen: those who have an interest in voting for other people to pay more tax so as to afford more freebies for all, and those who actually do the paying. There is more than a whiff of irresponsibility about this.
Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh

Read more letters: If you really want growth, give more money to the poor

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.