YOU have identified a potentially lethal breach of trust towards millions of defenceless animals (“No paws in takeovers: Almost half of Scottish vets practices are no longer independent”, October 22).

The profession of veterinary surgeons is based on the legal monopoly right to charge members of the public for treatment of animals in exchange for which vets undertake five essential principles of practice, all subject to the solemn declaration that they will use that monopoly to serve the interests of animal welfare with integrity and in priority over all other professional interests. Then, during the 1990s, the law changed and authorised shareholder companies to acquire the ownership of vet practices along with these valuable monopolies, but in exchange for money rather than principles of practice or any solemn declaration.

The monopoly right is conferred upon registered vets not to make them the private owners of the monopoly but as trustees for the public interest in proper animal welfare and the care and protection of defenceless animals. Normally, persons holding property in trust are not entitled to sell that property for their own private gain. Little wonder therefore that private shareholder companies cannot believe their luck in achieving access to the ownership of public monopolies and are willing to pay large sums of money for their acquisition.

It is the legal duty of these shareholder companies to operate their businesses in the best interests of their shareholders, not for the animals whom the monopolies were created to protect. There is therefore an irreconcilable conflict of interests between animal welfare and the shareholders’ legitimate interests in profits and dividends. It is difficult to reconcile that conflict with the principles and the solemn declaration referred to above.

It is not surprising therefore that you now report the finding of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) that there is an animal welfare crisis in Scotland, the heart-breaking consequences of pet owners not being able to afford vet fees. That consequence cannot come as a surprise now that the vets’ customers as well as funding the treatment of their pets along with the necessary costs of the vet profession have to finance also the profits and dividends of the shareholders.

Whether or not you have an interest in animal welfare, you do have an interest in preventing the sale of public monopolies for private profit. These same considerations apply to the professions of doctors, dentists, solicitors, opticians, pharmacists and others all of which are based on similar public monopolies, equally attractive to shareholder investment companies. Moves are now afoot in the Republic of Ireland to ban corporations from running veterinary practices, as was the case in the UK until the mid-1990s. For the reasons stated above, it is probably in your own interests to promote or support similar moves in the UK.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

Read more: Vets in Scotland: 40% of veterinary practices bought out

Yousaf shies away from honesty

DANI Garavelli’s article on Humza Yousaf’s ‘rabbit-out-of-a-hat’ moment at the SNP conference (“We will all pay a high price for Humza Yousaf’s council tax freeze bombshell”, The Herald, October 22) was very telling. The First Minister decided to ditch the idea of working more cooperatively with Scotland’s local authorities that he had signed up to just a few weeks ago. Apparently, that was then, and this was now, and on both occasions what the First Minister was doing was simply indulging in political spin rather than any meaningful attempt at good government. To claim that you will redouble efforts on reforming Council Tax without a word of explanation of how, lacks any credibility, particularly given nothing tangible has been achieved on this since it was originally set as a priority for the SNP back in 2007.

What is now beyond doubt is that this "continuity" First Minister will follow the SNP leadership’s long-standing tradition of recognising that for them honesty is most definitely not the best policy. In his conference speech, Mr Yousaf was brazenly economical with the truth on a number of occasions but still received the applause and encouragement from the party faithful, even if there were fewer of them than when the SNP’s "A" team were in control.

The lack of clarity on how much would be required to "fully fund" the First Minister’s council tax freeze, or where it would come from, revealed it for what it was, a last-minute crowd pleaser that had little or no thought put into its implementation. Equally, grandstanding £300 million to help reduce NHS waiting lists over the next few years might have momentarily sounded good, but it could prove to mean little given the apparent lack of thought as to how this money would be spent to best effect.

With the SNP piling up so many missed targets, missteps and failures over the last 16 years in power, it is no wonder every new initiative and claim soon has a question mark hanging over it.

Keith Howell, West Linton.

SNP guilty of grandstanding

HARDLY a day goes by without more revelations coming to the surface about the gross incompetence surrounding the building of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa at Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow. From the design stage to piping and cabling faults and safety fears during the construction phase, to a final reckoning that the ultimate value of the ships will be considerably less than the building costs, nothing seems to have escaped the influence of Sod's Law, that is, that if something can go wrong, it will.

In achieving this level of incompetence which even Third World countries would struggle to aspire to, the Scottish Government has jettisoned common sense and thrift in favour of grandstanding and trying to be the best. If and when these ships take to the high seas, the only certainty is that it will still not be plain sailing given the complex nature of their design and construction.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen.

Read more: Freeman is wrong on council tax. Many in higher bands are struggling

Police right on trans move

YOU report that policy group MurrayBlackburnMackenzie has objected to Police Scotland's moves to treat trans people fairly ("Call for Police Scotland to face ‘activism’ review in gender row", October 22). "Gender critical" beliefs deny that gender identity exists, or that some people have a gender identity that does not simply match their physical sex characteristics. Gender critical beliefs deny the real existence of trans people. Those beliefs are completely inconsistent with the social and scientific evidence about trans people.

Nevertheless, people can lawfully hold gender critical beliefs. What they are not entitled to do, while at work, is to use those beliefs as a reason to treat trans colleagues or customers badly, for example by refusing to use a person's transitioned name and gender. That is unlawful harassment under the Equality Act.

It is completely appropriate for Police Scotland to make that clear to officers, and to encourage them to treat trans people, and other people they serve, lawfully and with dignity.

Tim Hopkins, Director, Equality Network, Edinburgh.

EV fad meets economic reality

PLEASE be sympathetic to the plight of EV owners. They bought expensive EVs to parade their green credentials and got grants, free electricity and free parking in some council areas. The downside was that they had to queue to access charging points.

Unfortunately for EV owners because of repair and accident costs their insurance costs are becoming exorbitant or even unavailable. Some insurers are charging more than £100 a week. The average electric car insurance has risen by 72 per cent. There is the threat of a catastrophic fire if the cells of a battery have been damaged in a collision. Because of this EVs have been banned from underground car parks in many countries. Once an EV catches fire it has to be left to burn out.

The extra weight of the batteries in an EV means that they require larger parking areas to spread the weight. No wonder 50 per cent of EV owners are trading in their EVs and buying a petrol/diesel vehicle.

More will follow as the green EV fad meets economic reality.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow.

Much ado about very little

TWO articles in this week's edition left me baffled in that they took up a fair amount of space to say pretty much nothing.

First, claims that climate change poses a real and grave, indeed existential, threat to children ("Impact of climate change on young is ‘real and grave’", October 22) The reasons given are extreme weather, pollution and unprecedented energy costs but isn’t everything existential and unprecedented these days and of course there is the easy default position of blaming it all on climate change?

So why have children been singled out for imminent extinction when as far as I am aware all age groups breathe the same air, enjoy the same climate and incur the same costs of living?

Secondly a whole page trying to explain the Scottish Government's policy on children’s wellbeing and guidance on how it will be implemented ("‘It’s a collective responsibility’: Why Scottish teacher’s new ‘wellbeing’ book is a blueprint for pupil happiness", October 22).

This is undoubtedly an important subject, but it seemed to me that if you strike out the psychobabble and management-speak candy floss the article could be summarised in one sentence: “We are going to address children’s wellbeing by addressing children’s wellbeing.”

To my mind that doesn’t take us too far forward.

Keith Swinley, Ayr.