IAIN Macwhirter suggests that “devolution [to the English regions] is to be the core of Johnson’s Levelling Up White Paper due later this year”, despite the fact that as Mr Macwhirter points out, “we’ve had 22 years of devolved government yet the Scottish economy continues to underperform the UK”, which is true but uninformative as in any UK regional league table of economic wellbeing Scotland usually comes in somewhere between three and five (“Scotland hasn’t levelled up despite 30% higher public spending. Why?”, June 18).

For many years it has not at all been unusual for London and the south-east to be the only regions that perform above the UK average because they are so far ahead of every other part of the UK. In fact, the gap continues to widen. Stephanie Flanders, BBC Economics Editor in 2013, wrote that London significantly distorts the UK economy and without those two regions, appropriate economic policies for every other region would be different – less focused on finance and more on developing manufacturing – and they would benefit as a result. Thus, our “reward” for being part of the UK is misdirected, inappropriate economic policy.

Making much the same argument, Professor Tony Travers of LSE has suggested London is like a “Dark Star”, sucking in resources from all over the UK. For instance, the students Mr Macwhirter refers to, who “leave their towns and villages for the big cities and don’t come back”, something which has been going on for decades. However, rather than recognise the root problem – the “Dark Star” – Mr Macwhirter prefers to sneer contemptuously at “parochial small towns”, pointing out that there “aren’t many graduate jobs there”. If we consider that the UK is a state which has focused its most senior, best-paid public sector jobs in the south of the UK, how surprised should we be? Or that our business community almost as a matter of principle wants to locate its HQs in London?

Mr Macwhirter concludes that “until the structural problems of post-industrial capitalism are addressed, not a lot will change”, which is almost certainly true, but without the state making a determined effort to change the privileged status of London and the southeast it will not even start. Boris Johnson dare not say “equalisation”, but still “levelling up” is a noble aim. However, it is futile as long as one part of the UK continues to dominate in the manner and to the degree of the south-east.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

LACK OF CONTROL HOLDS US BACK

IAIN Macwhirter wonders why Scotland hasn’t “levelled up”. It is because we don’t have control over our own money but are dependent on a block grant from Westminster, which is less than half of what we generate in revenue. We don’t control the money supply, interest rates, social spending or the state pension, the lowest in the OECD.

We don’t control our defence. Westminster dumps its nuclear warheads less than an hour from our largest city. We don’t control our resources. Our oil wealth was squandered on privatising the nation’s assets, enriching private corporations and shareholders.

We don’t control our foreign policy. Boris Johnson and his lying band of Brexiters pulled us out of the world’s largest free trade bloc, decimating our exports, causing price increases, food shortages, and a loss of over £2 billion in EU funding.

The UK economy is broken. Inequality and poverty are rising and productivity has stagnated.

So it’s remarkable what Scotland has managed to achieve over the last 12 years. We have a more effective health service, lower rates of infant mortality, child poverty and persistent poverty. We have less crime, more police officers, teachers, nurses, doctors, and midwives. Net income for lower earners is higher and our tax system is more progressive. Our building standards are superior and we have more affordable housing. Prescriptions and university tuition are free. A higher percentage of our students leave school with qualifications. Our Covid infections and deaths are far lower than England’s.

The right question, Mr Macwhirter, is what would an independent Scotland be capable of achieving?

Leah Gunn Barrett, Edinburgh.

EDUCATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEY

I CAN’T share Iain Macwhirter’s core views on the separation issue, but I am a long-standing admirer of the quality and integrity of his writings. It pained me, therefore, on his behalf to read his article last Sunday about Scotland’s economic prospects, and to see how agonisingly hard it was for him to square his instinctive optimism for an independent Scotland with a frank confrontation of the hard economic realities which that would entail. He rose to the challenge with creditable honesty and rigour, but in doing so revealed a lack of conviction that the outcomes would really improve Scotland’s economic welfare. That effectively brought him to the same position as sceptical patriots such as me – that there would be a stiff economic price to pay for the joyful boost of independence.

It could all have been different if, back in the 1980s, Scotland had fled the Union and managed to carry most of the oil revenues with it. Now we might be rolling contentedly in a Norwegian style of private and public prosperity. But of course, we chose then to share that windfall gain with the rest of our British family, with very mixed consequences, although the Barnett Formula is a continuing direct payback for that generosity of spirit. It certainly helps to prevent our fortunes slumping even further.

Mr Macwhirter understands Scotland’s economic problems: our long and sorry track record of having low productivity; limited entrepreneurialism; poor commercialisation of research; and a dearth of successful, cutting-edge, globally competitive companies. He also recognises the distinctively complex historical, cultural and socio-economic reasons that lie behind these deficiencies, and which confound simple comparisons with other small nations.

To achieve comparative advantage in the post-industrial economic world, the key factor is now the quality of a nation’s human capital: its productivity, energy, responsibility, creativity, and adaptability. If Scotland is to flourish under any future government, these are the qualities we must embrace and, especially, instil in our children.

So, Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right to identify education as our key national priority, along with the social structures that support it. What a pity she and her Government have then failed to do anything effective about it during these last 14 years.

David Henderson, Inverness.

ELECTION WIN A PYRRHIC VICTORY

THE SNP claimed a “landslide” win in May’s elections. As Scotland’s difficulties mount daily the inevitable and out of touch SNP response that independence is the only answer loses credibility.

Blaming Westminster has long since lost its impact due to over-use. There are no quick fixes to the huge problems Scotland faces but the next few years in office will inevitably expose the basic frailties of the SNP and its lack of ideas going forward. It needs a very different approach which encompasses and acknowledges the benefits of the Union to have any chance of success, particularly as the perceived notion that the European Union can be seen as a substitute is very highly questionable.

The SNP has tied its colours to the mast of independence but this is rapidly being swallowed up by the harsh realities of the real world and internal SNP in-fighting over this very issue. The SNP’s “landslide” victory may well come to be viewed as a pyrrhic one and liable to sweep the party itself away.

Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow.

ALAS, POOR OLD HAMLET

THE opening night of Hamlet at the Theatre Royal, Windsor, with that doyen of the stage in the lead role, Sir Ian McKellen, is now over and the virtuosity of this venerable knight of the stage will have protected the play somewhat from the experimentation of having an aged veteran in the role of a much younger man.

It will not have prevented the less imaginative and more traditional amongst us from the misgivings such a casting has undoubtedly created, though McKellen deserves the plaudits for taking on this role at his age and carrying it off, acquitting himself superbly under the circumstances

However, despite the transformational effect of McKellen’s stage magic, I find it hard to believe that his physical appearance did not jar upon the sensibilities of the audience to strip the suspension of disbelief from the performance. The scenes where Hamlet confronts Ophelia and Gertrude could not have rung true or carried conviction with the age difference being so unavoidably obvious.

Where Hamlet caresses the skull of Yorick would not have brought the sense of nostalgia as Hamlet recalls the jester who entertained him as a boy. Rather it must look like a reminder of Hamlet’s closeness to mortality in the person of McKellen.

While the audience would marvel at the agility of the aged actor in the duelling scene, it would have been the pleasure one obtains from watching an elderly person doing what you would have least expected, thereby detracting from the point of that scene.

There is experimentation and there is taking things a stage too far.

This production, despite McKellen’s virtuoso performance in a role written for a younger man, falls into the latter category.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

RECREATING LARGS

I AM missing the seaside thrill of Largs after more than a year since my last visit. I decided to do an irresponsible, but small, re-enactment of the friendly thieving seagulls, by throwing some stale bread on to our small front lawn, not having a fish supper to hand. Only managed to get a photo of six of the near-dozen birds that descended en masse and almost blocked out my view of the grass. They must have Bluetooth communication, as they arrived as soon as the bread hit the ground, and then promptly left in the blink of an eye.

George Dale, Beith.