THE SNP appears to be running scared about reaching a settlement for the new fiscal framework under discussion with the UK Government (“Murray urges governments to concentrate their efforts on securing deal over fiscal framework”, The Herald, February 3). In my view there are two basic reasons for its delaying tactics.

First having a settlement before the forthcoming elections would mean it would have to explain exactly how it would use its new tax raising powers – and we all know announcing tax increases beforehand would harm the party at the polls.

Secondly, some key SNP supporters have described the proposed new powers as a fiscal trap and are now looking for unrealistic guarantees to ensure there will be no financial detriment, no matter how badly the Scottish economy performs.

Indeed, having believed its own rhetoric for years about oil being "just a bonus" and that our onshore growth would outperform the rest of the UK, the reality of the situation has finally begun to sink into the SNP hierarchy – especially since 65,000 oil jobs were lost last year (and counting) and our onshore GDP is growing at only one-quarter of the rest of the UK which would hurt our tax revenues under the new devolved arrangements.

In conclusion, the SNP desires power but doesn't want any fiscal accountability in the future which could point the finger at its own inept economic performance compared to the rest of the UK.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

RUTH Marr (Letters, February 3) writes powerfully again for independence, as usual assigning all our ills to Westminster. It helps to view Ms Marr's assertions in a broader light, however.

So, point by point: the UK's involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan were indeed plain wrong, but the extent of the current Middle East chaos could not have been predicted. The UK did not envisage it, and did try to support greater democracy.

Scotland would have had a mountain of cash from collecting all the oil revenues over 40 years - but those days are gone. Scotland is anyway currently prosperous as one of the world's richest nations if considered separately from the rUK. The oil might have made us massively prosperous but the Netherlands' example when it got rich from natural gas is not encouraging.

The supposed negativity and fear pushed by the Unionists against separation are never detailed but stated as axioms. What was and is meant by Unionists needs explaining properly. The financial aspects are even worse now than then - an annual fiscal deficit for us of an estimated £15 billion plus our share of £120bn of the accumulated UK debt. That two-thirds of our trade is with the rUK never seemed to be of importance.

The prospect of our being controlled for decades by a centralising, authoritarian, doctrinaire majority party well practised in evading questioning and being held to account is still not appealing, particularly when internal dissent is rigorously squashed. In spite of not wanting the patronising Tories either.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.

WITH his latest exchanges with Scotland’s councils, John Swinney has proved he is unrelenting in his determination to get his own way (“Swinney’s penalties threat scuppers plan for first council tax rise”, The Herald, February 2). Any new money raised from council tax would be more than matched by bigger cash penalties.

Yet there is nothing subtle about central government whipping local authorities into line with financial threats. Basically Mr Swinney has shown that he can thwart any attempt by councils to protect local services through using their own tax raising powers. Those services cover a broad swathe of critical needs, including education, social services and funding of a spectrum of third sector projects run by charities for the most vulnerable in society using local authority funding. Mr Swinney insists that the squeeze of all these services is to continue, and he removes any flexibility on the part of local government to counter the impact.

So Mr Swinney has a big enough stick to remove local decision making, rendering local democracy ineffective in the process. It seems our councils must suffer the centralising instincts of the SNP without any hope of relief.

Keith Howell,

White Moss, West Linton, Peeblesshire.

KEZIA Dugdale’s promise of a penny increase in Scottish income tax (“Labour to demand 1p income tax rise for everyone”, The Herald, February 2) is part of an interesting new development in Scotland’s public expenditure. Scottish Labour, which campaigned with the Tories to keep Scotland united with Tory England, now wants Scots to pay the price to mitigate the impact of Tory England’s policies in Scotland.

Already the SNP government, through its Scottish Welfare Fund, is using Scottish taxpayers’ money to counteract the effect of the bedroom tax and other negative measures forced on us by Tory England. We are witnessing the emergence of a “political cost of the Union” element in Scotland’s taxation system.

Tom Johnston,

SNP councillor, North Lanarkshire Council,

5 Burn View, Cumbernauld.