IT is our new PM's boast that she is set upon boosting growth in the UK.

That is indeed a laudable ambition to which all sensible political parties would subscribe. But how that should be achieved is where the nub of the argument lies.

Her introduction to this ambition got off to a cack-handed start from which she will find it difficult to recover with her tax reductions and her emphasis upon heavy borrowing, both of which triggered the plunge in the pound and the Bank of England's expensive efforts to rescue the bond market, maybe only temporarily.

Behind her ambition lies her adherence to a small state, low taxation and deregulation. That trinity of anti-welfare objectives should make readers shiver in their shoes and set alarm bells ringing.

To go down that route augurs ill for the good of the nation with its implications for public services and properly-funded safe infrastructure developments.

Now those Red Wall voters who fell for the blandishments of Boris Johnson must surely be reconsidering that choice and be contemplating joining the march of Sir Keir Starmer's army towards the occupation of No 10.

Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.

INEQUALITY CANNOT GO ON

I ADMIRE Angus MacEachran's honesty (Letters, September 29) in explaining his reluctance to pay more tax. While I can understand his decision, based on the tax disincentive to work more hours, I am less convinced about his conclusion that by reducing his overtime, he cost his company and the Exchequer lost revenue.

By his own admission, the consequence of his decision resulted in reduced personal stress and, clearly, he still earned enough to remain "comfortably off". Surely that is a sensible outcome that most of us would aspire to.

The gov.uk website indicates that £100,000 is the current threshold at which the personal allowance is reduced and £150,000 when the additional rate is due. Mr MacEachran claims not to be "super-rich" but is certainly not "fairly normal". Average pay, I believe, is around £26,000.

My late father, whose salary never reached the average, used to tell his wealthier friends who complained about tax rates that he would happily pay their tax if he had their income.

Mr MacEachran agrees that poorer members of society need help. Sadly, too many people in this country, struggling to make ends meet, are obliged to take any work they can get and work long and unsociable hours. That is what I find "distasteful and offensive".

Inequality in our society has increased for over 70 years and the gap between rich and poor shows no sign of closing any time soon. "trickle-down" economics won't solve this problem. Everyone knows that tax and income redistribution must be part of the solution.

David Bruce, Troon.

A TIME FOR REBRANDING

SO much has been said about this completely predictable financial catastrophe that does not need restating. So, I believe we have to look at a root cause, one that has reinforced inequality in our society and encouraged the politics of self interest.

I believe “tax” has had a bad rap since income tax was introduced by William Pitt in the late 18th century. It requires a complete rebrand.

For ever, we have talked of the “tax burden”. This obviously has negative connotations from the outset.

This negativity ignores the fact that it allows us to pay for the NHS, schools, police, defence – everything that is the glue that holds society together.

We should ask those whose main objective seems to pay as little tax as possible: do you want to be treated quickly and effectively when you are ill, your children to be well educated, your homes not to be burgled and your country to be kept secure from aggressors? If the answer is yes, then these benefits have to be paid for.

By reinforcing the idea that tax is bad, the Tories and, to lesser extents, other political parties encourage the wealthier to adopt an “I’m alright, there’s no such thing as society and I can make my own arrangements, thank you” attitude.

So I think “tax” needs to be rebranded. My suggestion would be to replace it with a “Community Contribution”. We would feel happier about making a “contribution”. It would be a positive action rather than a negative one. Those who sought to avoid making their fair contribution would rightly be seen as pariahs. And it would be seen to be fair that those who have most, make the largest contribution.

There is self-interest for the wealthier. They would not have to incur the expense of private health care, they would be happy to send their children to state schools and a better-educated and more equal society would create the environment for less crime and lead to a more effective police force. There might even be kudos in boasting how large a community contribution you were making rather like the way some (not all) wealthy persons make very public donations to charity to boost their public profile. Maybe, if the wealthy were paying their fair share, we might not even need for the reliance of the poorer on “charity”. Just a thought.

William Thomson, Denny.

WORRYING MOVE ON LEGAL POWERS

IT may have been an innocent slip-up when the First Minister casually usurped the function of the police (“'No evidence' of criminality on ferries deal, says Sturgeon”, The Herald, September 29) but it is consistent with a long-standing and sinister attitude to constitutional propriety.

This is the Government which previously abolished the local police forces which had been under the control of local, elected authorities and replaced them with a single, standing force answerable to Scottish ministers. It is not surprising therefore that the First Minister should feel entitled to indicate to the police when they should keep their noses out of Government business. However, it is not constitutionally acceptable.

In the same vein, this Government has abolished the elected Council of Solicitors which has previously been responsible for the regulation of the solicitors’ profession and replaced it with a regulatory committee, again, answerable to Scottish ministers. Now the Government has in hand draft legislation to remove the Lord President of the Court of Session from their long-standing and previously uncontroversial supervisory position over the regulation of the solicitors’ profession. If that legislation goes through it will be fair to conclude that Scotland, along with a number of other, usually totalitarian, states, has finally abandoned the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. It is more surprising and disappointing that this has not been made an issue by any of the opposition parties.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

CHAMBERS SELL-OFF BRINGS PROBLEMS

ANDREW Learmonth reports that SNP-controlled Glasgow City Council (GCC) is to sell off some prime assets including the City Chambers, in order to raise cash ("Glasgow will ‘sell’ City Chambers and Kelvingrove to settle equal pay claims", The Herald, September 30). This money is required to rectify a historical problem created by the Scottish Labour Party which controlled Glasgow for decades and true to its socialist principles, underpaid its women workers. All credit to the SNP administration paying out £505 million in 2019 to the affected workers, but unfortunately, there are still outstanding financial issues to be settled.

It is not clear who has valued the proposed properties at what seems a low £200 million but they will be flogged off to a council-owned arms-length external organisation (Aleo) which will then lease the properties back to the council for 30 or 40 years. It all sounds hunky dory as the Aleo will own the properties and the council owns the Aleo and “users will see no difference”. What about council taxpayers, will they be affected whether or not they use the sold-off facilities?

The Aleo in question will have to borrow the money to pay the council for the properties and in a time of rising interest rates and real uncertainty, that does not seem to be a very good idea, although it will certainly raise cash right now. A loan has to be repaid and if interest rates increase substantially, the Aleo will have no option other than to increase what it charges the council each year or alternatively the council will have to bailout the Aleo to meet its borrowing obligations. It is the council taxpayers of the future who will be left with the burden. Setting up an Aleo does provide some important financial benefits to a council but fundamentally, it is a complicated disguise to conceal council borrowing and is little different from taking out a mortgage to raise funds, in this case with GCC as guarantor.

Alan M Morris, Blanefield.