We need courage to tackle root cause of Britain’s decline

Successive governments have focussed on a host of symptoms of this economic decline, including shoplifting; failing high streets; homelessness; increasing need for state support; worklessness; crumbling infrastructure; and many more.

Any medical professional would aim to diagnose the root cause of the symptoms and treat that cause.

I believe our politicians do know that the root cause is prolonged economic stagnation, though are unwilling to take the necessary action to reverse this decline.

Two things, I believe, would improve our economic performance. First, reduce uncompetitive energy costs that apply to businesses and households. And second, incentivise work.

It will take political courage to reverse our national economic decline. I do wonder where that courage exists.

Colin Milne, Aberdeen.

More letters...

Mordaunt is wrong: it was unionists who stoked the hatred

More fond memories of the Humber Super Snipe

No Brexit windfall for Scots NHS

Yes, police should be armed

David Clark (Letters, September 19) cites a few bad apples in the police force as a reason for not arming them all. I understand his concern but not his logic.

There might be reasons for omitting some officers from the process, but that should not detract from the obvious benefits of arming the others.

Indeed, this might improve the police selection and vetting process, which is clearly inadequate.

In the USA, I suggest, it would be impossible to have an unarmed force in a country where guns are freely and legally available, and carried by criminals and populace alike. The USA has a frontier gun culture that is ineradicable.

One US benefit that is never published is the number of officers' lives that have been saved by the use of their own guns.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinnesswood.

Data centres: not welcome here

Following protests outside Holyrood against the construction of large data centres for AI, rather than imposing a complete moratorium on construction, the government has introduced mandatory environmental impact assessments for all new data centres with a power capacity above 50 MW.

It wouldn't surprise me if they agreed to this compromise just to appease the electorate ahead of the local elections in May 2027.

More than twenty large facilities have been proposed in Scotland, including those by American tech companies. Plans to build data centres near residential areas are understandably causing dissatisfaction among the citizens (“The six local campaigns that tell the data centre backlash story”, The Herald, September 23).

Colossal water consumption, carbon emissions and an immense strain on Scotland's power grids. Which of these, in our government's view, is supposed to delight us? Driven by an alleged desire to create more jobs, London is literally forcing us to live in an industrial zone.

I used to think that the UK's strength lay in its unity.

However, now I believe that it is time for Holyrood to free itself from Westminster's pressure, especially when it comes to the development of AI infrastructure.

Duncan Burgess, Inverness.

Transport… what transport?

Seems like Transport Scotland is an oxymoron. Everything they seem to touch either doesn't happen or suffers massive delays.

Dualling the A9; the Ardrossan Ferry terminal; the ‘new’ ferries; the alternative route for the Rest and Be Thankful etc.

Ivor Matheson, Dumfries.

Indy: printed pros and cons

The ‘Indy: two votes required’ contribution by Colin Milne (Letters, September 18) makes a valid suggestion.

However, would it also help if the people of Scotland see in print the pros and cons of independence before any referendum? Then a second confirmatory vote would surely be the right thing.

David Pettigrew, Glasgow.

Indy: reaching finishing line

As an SNP and independence supporter, I welcome the new Scottish Labour leader’s agreement that Scotland has the right to determine its constitutional future.

I support his call that the Scottish government needs to build a consensus.

In the last referendum uncertainty regarding pensions and currency led to many people voting ‘No’. The independence movement has had many, many years since then to formulate a response and an answer.

Please, can someone respond to my request, and give me an answer that I can use to push our justification over the finishing line.

Dr Kevin C Duff, Alloa.

SNP: same-old, same-old

I had a feeling of déja vu when I read SNP members calling for the next General Election to be a defining vote on Scotland's right to choose (presumably independence). (“Swinney calls for ‘unanimous’ support to back ‘right to decide’”, The Herald, September 21.)

Exactly the same call was made five years ago, following the 2021 Holyrood elections, viz., that the next UK General Election should be a de facto referendum on independence.

This strategy was rejected by the leadership, who perhaps had an inkling what might happen in the afore-mentioned next General Election, which was held in 2024. In the event, the SNP lost most of their Westminster seats, retaining just nine, since reduced to eight.

Perhaps it might have been a good thing had the SNP leadership gone along with that proposal of a de facto referendum. Though I suspect they would never have accepted it as the be-all and end-all.

Jane Ann Liston, St Andrews.

Liberal Democrat Leader Sir Ed Davey believes he has figured out tax improvements - is he right? (Image: Andrew Milligan/PA Wire)

Tax problems: engineering solutions

I listened to Ed Davey telling his Liberal Democrat party conference that the way to make people better off is to cut various taxes, and that this would be self-funding (“Lib Dems call on Andy Burnham to cut fuel duty by 10p a litre to ease cost pressures”, The Herald, September 21).

That's like saying that if you get on the bus and someone else pays your fare the bus is self-funded. The problem with fiscal policy to distribute living costs lies in our grossly unfair taxing of earned income.

What we label as Income Tax is actually a crude and poorly directed form of wealth tax. The lowest paid ‘benefit’ from a tax-free personal allowance, which allows employers to get away with paying them poverty wages.

The tax avoided by the low-paid adds to the burden on the better-paid, and this unfairness repeats as each tax band threshold is passed. Employers can fund the same number of hours of work at lower cost by using part-time or zero hours staff in preference to full-time workers.

Moving towards a single rate of tax on all earned income with no cliff-edges or hurdles would increase pay at the lower levels and reduce differentials by removing the upward pressure imposed by higher rates.

Taxing all earned income at the same rate would be totally fair. A 1% increase across the board would mean £10 annually to a £10k earner but £100 to a £100k earner. Such rate changes would not unfairly target or favour any income group.

The ‘fiscal drag’ device employed by governments to impose hidden tax increases would no longer be available.

Economic growth would benefit greatly from a single rate income tax if the main tax burden was transferred to unearned income.

Higher earners who shared their income with others through expenditure would grow the economy compared to those who stashed it away in savings and investments to enrich themselves.

I am only qualified in engineering, so perhaps some economists among Herald readers will dispute my logic…

Willie Maclean, Milngavie.