I AM reluctant to take on the redoubtable Iain AD Mann (Letters, October 15), but he surely realises that the UK's economy is like a super-tanker. It takes time to turn it round even if starting from a good position and in favourable conditions. In 2010, the Coalition Government should have assumed it would need 10 years, not pretended five would be enough.

It inherited a stalling economy with a massive and rising fiscal deficit and national debt, so it is hardly surprising that both are still so high. The difficulty in reducing the deficit has been exacerbated by the euro-induced growth problems in the important EU market (apart from Germany of course, as the only Eurozone country that was allowed to devalue, the euro being far weaker than its DMark would have been, thereby boosting its export potential) and possibly by the period's mass immigration, though its full effects seem unclear.

Our fiscal deficit increased before the credit crunch because of the Brown/Blair doubling in real terms (excluding inflation) of our public expenditure, without commensurate benefit. Moreover, that doubling excluded PFI expenditure (for example, NHS trusts) saddling us with massive obligations for taxes to bear over the next few decades.

Because of such obligations and others wrongly excluded from the official national debt like the state and many public pensions (and with no offsetting oil fund) the UK's true debt is probably around £6 trillion rather than the £1.6 trillion which will probably be reported for 30 September.

The SNP's stance on even more borrowing, presumably with Mr Mann's support, would have increased that further, in the short term at least.

John Birkett,

12 Horseleys Park, St Andrews.

The SNP conference grandees and attendees surprisingly did not make much noise about how their government is rebuilding our infrastructure. There are so many projects under way they were spoiled for choice if they wanted to make a splash.

The Queensferry Crossing still stands out, then there are the rail electrification plans, the completed Borders railway, the upgrading of the A9, A96, A82, the M8 and all the other roads, new schools and hospitals. Why the reticence? Clearly it was considered better to go for it next year for the Holyrood elections.

However, could it be that the funding for it all is too obviously only available because the Westminster block grant currently gives us about £1,600 per head annually more than the average UK citizen, about £6 billion for our five million folk?

No government member would want to remind voters that we do quite well financially by being part of the Union, even though they are going to lose out as we collect more of our own taxes. It follows that there has been enough money to alleviate much poverty and do away with the bedroom tax and food banks, just by forgoing some of the infrastructure programme. Again Holyrood has to be held to account for doing so little for the last few years until recently.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn,St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.