YOU report Douglas Ross’s promise that any Conservative councillor elected next month will “apply to Westminster's Levelling Up Fund, which provides direct investment to councils for local projects” ("SNP urges rejection of ‘power grab’ as Conservatives commit to funding scheme", The Herald, April 11). He claims some SNP-run councils did not apply for such funds, though acknowledges that “many nationalist-run administrations ignored the SNP Government’s rhetoric and submitted applications”, as indeed my own SNP council has. Bit awkward that, though, isn’t it?

However, what Mr Ross is careful to avoid is that the much-vaunted Levelling Up fund replaces European funding, which was directed to “improve employment and education opportunities .. [as well as].. to improve the situation of the most vulnerable people at risk of poverty”. In contrast Levelling Up, in its first round at least, will support “regeneration projects across the UK, investing billions in our railways, rolling out next-generation gigabit broadband and moving more government functions and civil servants out of London as part of investment across the country.”

Great, but are these not activities the UK Government should be undertaking anyway? Why present as “special funding”, funding to create a less unequal UK?

Moreover, the difference between the two approaches is reminiscent of disputes 20 or 30 years ago between the UK and the European Commission. The latter considered its funding to be additionality on UK spending, whereas the former was always looking to use European funds to fund its own policies. Plus ça change, it seems.

Another critical difference is though that where European funds (for instance European Social Fund, ESF, or European Regional Development Fund, ERDF) were provided, they were subject to being directed at progress towards specified aims. It was though a matter for the Scottish Government (after 1999), as the managing authority, to put in place a procedure for determining which projects to support, consistent with the commitments to the European Commission. Decisions about which proposals Levelling Up will support are taken at Westminster. One can only imagine the rage of Brexiters if ESF had not only provided funds, but also determined the specific projects to be supported. Mhairi Black is quite correct to complain the Levelling Up is a device “seeking to bypass the devolved governments and dictate spending over devolved areas”.

Alasdair Galloway, Dunbarton.

DID JOHNSON DO SUNAK DOWN?

I AM intrigued that in calling for credit to be given where it is due to the Prime Minister, James Martin (Letters, March 11) declares that "Partygate, Wallpapergate and the rest of the gates still to be unearthed can wait their time to be answered". How many more gates can there possibly be for Boris Johnson to try to slither under?

Perhaps one of them could be Non-domgate, the scandal which has erupted over Rishi Sunak's wife's tax arrangements and non-dom status, with many in the Chancellor's camp believing that the leak came from No 10 because of policy clashes between Mr Johnson and Mr Sunak. If indeed the leak did come from Mr Johnson's office, it rather begs the question: how long did Mr Johnson know about Akshata Murty's tax situation before it was brought to our attention? The Prime Minister says that Mr Sunak has his "full support" but as Mr Johnson is known for being economical with the truth, Mr Sunak may view that as a sign to pack his bags and move into one of the several homes owned by him and his billionaire wife. Certainly, he won't be moving into No 10 any time soon, and probably never.

Mr Martin praises the help given by Mr Johnson to Ukraine, but while they may be grateful for the weapons he has provided, the people of Ukraine would be entitled to wonder why his Government has been so slow to welcome their refugees.

Ruth Marr, Stirling.

* LET'S all be very clear, Boris Johnson's weekend visit to Ukraine ("Russian generals may face UK sanctions for atrocities", The Herald, April 11) had little to do with support in any way for the independence and sovereignty of that nation or pursuit of peace in the region. It was primarily to bolster the domestic image of a man mired in scandal relating to the many bumps beneath the carpet he has tried to sweep things under. Is Mr Johnson really the person that the people of Scotland want representing us on the world stage?

Ni Holmes, St Andrews.

POLITICIANS FOOLING US ALL

WC Fields adapted the quotation about fooling the people (mis)attributed to Abraham Lincoln to read: "You can fool some of the people some of the time and that's enough to make a decent living." Why do I have the impression that this is the motto by which so many of our politicians (from Boris Johnson to Nicola Sturgeon) seem to function? The list of examples, from personal taxes to ferries to press blackouts, is too long for your Letters Pages – just look at how many column inches it takes up in the rest of the paper. A politician, or anyone else, is entitled to an opinion about my or your intellectual abilities but nothing is more guaranteed to cause resentment than being seen to treat us as fools.

Brian Chrystal, Edinburgh.

PLAN NOT FULLY DEVELOPED

THE SNP has a plan to lower the age of standing for election to 16. The SNP also states that young people who commit crime should not be treated harshly because the brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. Does that then mean that Scotland could be run by people with underdeveloped brains? The bit that worries me is that this scheme is expected to gain cross-party endorsement.

Ian Balloch, Grangemouth.

WHAT THEY ALL THINK...

ALLAN Sutherland (Letters, April 9) asks what is fair. It is all a matter of politics.

A Conservative thinks fair is only getting out what you have put in.

A Social Democrat (like me) thinks fair is putting in what you can can afford and getting out what you need.

A Liberal thinks fair is whatever they say it is.

A nationalist thinks everything is unfair to them.

Peter A Russell, Glasgow.

DON'T NEGLECT OUR FISHING SECTOR

WHILST media attention is rightly focused on Ukraine and the current cost of living crisis, ministers of both our parliaments should ensure that the Scottish fishing industry both offshore and onshore is not forgotten.

Rising fuel costs places the viability of the whole industry at risk, with a huge knock-on effect to our coastal and island communities, which are already under severe pressure.

We have an extremely efficient fishing fleet and onshore facilities which provide food for us all and now is maybe the time for government intervention to regulate offshore wind farms, which have a devastating effect on good fishing waters. Full consultation with fishing authorities before any future licences are issued should surely be an imperative.

The Faroe Islands seem to have established such a relationship with the renewables sector and it would seem to make sense for Scotland to do the same.

DG McIntyre, Edinburgh.

WHERE WILL WE SOURCE ELECTRICITY?

IN response to the recent Westminster energy strategy announcement Scotland's Energy Minister, Michael Mathieson, emphatically repeated the Scottish Governments's policy of rejecting any new nuclear electricity generation in Scotland.

The SNP/Green Government has stated its intent to close down fossil fuel extraction, including gas, from the North Sea. It has also stated its intentions on both replacing gas heating with electricity-fuelled radiators or heat pumps and replacing petrol and diesel-fuelled vehicles with electrically-driven vehicles.

Perhaps Mr Mathieson could enlighten us as to where our electricity will come from in order to meet this increased demand when the wind is not blowing and particularly when our last remaining nuclear reactors at Torness shut down in the very near future?

GM Lindsay, Kinross.

NUCLEAR WORKS WELL FOR FRANCE

IF Alec Oattes (Letters, April 11) is so concerned about nuclear power, he might wonder how France has constructed and operated 58 such stations since the 1970s, without mishap or problem with waste disposal.

When our windmills are lacking, we draw from six French reactors at Gravelines, and they keep our lights on in winter.

Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.

* SO the SNP is still saying it won't build any new nuclear reactors in Scotland. Maybe this is a blessing in disguise when you look at the ferries fiasco. You can imagine the cost and time overruns of an SNP nuclear programme.

Geoff Moore, Alness.

Read more: Letters: Sunak could easily help the poor. Why won't he?