Time we had access to big income streams

NOT for the first time, I found David Torrance’s column superficial and rather ill-balanced (“Why devolution has hardly been given time to breathe”, The Herald, September 11). He writes that “it is 20 years since voters equipped the Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers”. That is nonsense in several ways, not least because neither UK nor Scottish voters had a say in these decisions.

The original devolution arrangements gave the Scottish Parliament virtually no control over the financial means to exercise such powers as were devolved. Over the years there has been a drip-feed of limited powers over income tax rates and minor taxes such as air passenger duty.

But the Scottish Parliament still has no control of, or direct access to, other major income streams such as corporation tax, VAT, fuel duties and National Insurance (which has now become just another form of government taxation, and has little to do with the original intention of financing state pensions or the NHS). Westminster and Whitehall retain total control of these sources of annual public income, with proportional amounts allocated to devolved administrations in accordance with populations and prescribed needs.

Even when the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition was in control at Holyrood it was well aware that increasing the basic rates of income tax was a poisoned chalice as it would hit the most vulnerable families hardest and, more importantly, would cost it power. So the devolved tax powers to Holyrood were not an opportunity but more a deliberate trap all Scottish governments to date have understandably avoided.

We are constantly told by commentators such as David Torrance that the SNP Government has failed to promote inward investment, support successful businesses and invest more in public services. All of these are the responsibility of national government in every country but, without control of the means, the ends are very difficult to achieve. No doubt David Torrance understands all of this, but carefully avoids mentioning it.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

DAVID Torrance is right in his column to suggest that devolution has not really been given a proper chance.

For the second half of its first 20 years, it is the SNP that has sought to define the agenda for Scotland, and too often that has been more about taking us out of the UK rather than prioritising the fundamental day-to-day needs of the people of Scotland.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is that the proportional representation that was expected to deliver coalition governments has, instead, given us both majority and minority governments.

These have focused on pursuing an overriding goal that has been in direct conflict with all of the other main parties.

Arguably, it is not just consensus politics that has suffered as a result, but also the widespread improvement in Scotland’s wellbeing that the Scottish Parliament was intended to give us.

Keith Howell, White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

PETER Russell (Letters, September4 9) is wrong when he says devolution was set up to improve the governance of Scotland in the UK. As then Scottish Secretary of State George

Robertson told us, the reason for setting it up was to “kill nationalism stone dead”.

Devolution has had the opposite effect. We Scots had lacked confidence in the ability of our leaders and institutions to run a menodge. We came to realise that our governing skills were as good as anybody else’s. If we can decide sensibly how to invest in health and education, why not take all of our decisions on how to spend all of our own earnings?

Peter Russell is right when he says that two nationalisms are growing. The Scottish brand seeks only independence, the same right to go our own way and participate in the global family as is enjoyed by many smaller countries. The British brand of nationalism is shriller and, for the rest of the world, riskier than the Scottish brand and it’s hard to predict where that will end up.

Mary McCabe,

25 Circus Drive, Glasgow.