Don't believe the doomsayers: this is a great country to move to

Setting up in Scotland is on average 10% cheaper than in England, more even when you look at the South-east or London. Add to that free prescriptions, the Scottish Child Payment, no tuition fees and other benefits it is no wonder that folk vote with their feet. But as always, it is all the fault of the SNP. They don't want English immigrants; well, actually, I know several English people who are active SNP members. The conspiracy theory doesn't add up in this case.

Trudy Duffy-Wigman, Crook of Devon, Kinross-shire.

Where is our money?

ON Monday (October 28) Bloomberg UK published an article entitled "UK Traders Brace for Reeves to Unveil £293 Billion of Debt Sales". It related directly to the new Debt Management Office gilt issuance for 2025 by the UK Treasury and the fact that UK debt sales this year will be the second highest on record. While the figures concerned are staggering it is important that ordinary citizens in this country - and by that I mean Scotland - should not lose sight of the fact that they and future generations of people who live here are going to have to pay significant amounts to the UK Treasury in order to service this debt through interest payments. Therefore, on this basis they should be asking exactly what Scotland will be receiving in return for helping to shoulder the burden of the UK's vast debts.

Seeing as Whitehall allocates Scotland's borrowing requirement on the basis of an overall 8.5% share of that of the UK, this means that £25 billion of this "new" capital is being collected in Scotland's name and we will therefore be asked (and expected) to pay the interest on that. So, here is the question. Why is Scotland's capital budget barely a fraction of this number?

In 2024/25 Scotland's capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) block grant is £5.5bn. As Scotland's share of the the UK debt burden is calculated at 8.5%, on a projected basis we should be due to receive £25bn from the UK Treasury sale of these new bonds. Even assuming that approximately half of that amount would be withheld by the Treasury to service its existing debt, that would mean that the capital budget for Scotland should be in the region of £12bn. As published Scottish Government figures indicate, our capital Block Grant currently stands at less than half of that sum. It cannot be the case that Scotland pays 8.5% debt interest for GERS every single year, but receives less than half of that in capital allocation from the debt Whitehall issues.

Where is the rest of the money?

Jim Finlayson, Banchory.

Read more letters

• Is it any wonder people in UK don't want to move to Scotland?
• Why on earth is Operation Branchform taking so long?

Progressive prejudices

THIS disastrous Budget is the inevitable result of people who lack real world business experience putting their naive prejudices before basic economics. The Labour Party, in common with every other "progressive" party, hates the private sector (especially small business people), private landlords and anyone with enough wealth to be independent of the state. This dreadful mindset informs all their policy decisions.

What Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer and all socialists forget is that the people they detest are not cardboard cut-outs but real people with agency, who will react to their actions. So entrepreneurs will follow the non-doms in emigrating to places where their talent and energy are rewarded. Similarly, private landlords will sell up, or invest less in their property, thus contracting the rental market. With higher costs and higher taxes, businesses will invest less and employ fewer people.

None of these predictable consequences will benefit the ordinary people, whom our political class pretend to care about.

Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife.

A waste of public money

I HAVE just received a letter from the DWP about changes to the winter fuel payment. It tells me about the eligibility needed to receive this (Pension Credit etc).

This information has been well publicised in the media, on TV and so on. I won’t receive it, and I’m not in the position to need it.

But I wonder about the cost of sending a double-page letter to every pensioner in Scotland, and no doubt in England and Wales.

We are continually be told of the £40 billion black hole. How much of that is exacerbated by sending out such letters?

I’m sure that most if not all pensioners are aware of the situation. The letter I and many others received seems superfluous and a waste of public money.

Gordon W Smith, Paisley.

Difficulties of fraud cases

JIM Sillars (Letters, October 28) has questioned why Operation Branchform is taking so long. A number of years ago, I was involved in substantial fraud investigations.

The main cases took five years to come to court and, when I was called as a court witness, I was asked to consider material from about seven or eight years before. To answer clearly and accurately was quite a difficult task given the time frame. I also remember looking over at the jury who, without wanting to sound disrespectful, looked totally bored and perhaps did not fully understand accountancy and procurement rules. I wonder where this one will go.

Duncan Sooman, Milngavie.

Friends in high places

IT was interesting to read David Lammy’s less than impartial comments on the Israel/Iran confrontation; apparently it’s acceptable that Israel has atomic weapons but not that Iran may aspire to have them ("Lammy calls for restraint in conflict", The Herald, October 29). I don’t recall him mentioning that the RAF in the last year have flown over 600 reconnaissance missions over Gaza, the intelligence they gather being passed to the IDF. Why are we spending taxpayers’ money to facilitate the genocide taking place in Gaza?

The rationale behind his attitude to the situation and the involvement of our supposed defence forces in the area is perhaps explained by him, the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers being members of the pressure group at Westminster, Labour Friends of Israel. One can only speculate why this information which is freely available online seldom if ever appears in the mainstream media.

David J Crawford, Glasgow.

David Lammy (Image: Maja Smiejkowska/PA Wire)

The carbon cost of war

AFTER 80 completed years on the planet I almost agree with GR Weir ("Climate fight is all but lost", (Letters October 28). Having been taught the concept of the greenhouse effect on the climate in second-year Biology at St Andrews in 1964, I do feel guilty at not having pursued the development of the argument publicly.

However, I feel that there has been a substantial omission from the discussion on the proximity of the tipping point when change becomes irreversible.

Wars currently being waged in Europe and the Middle East make enormous contributions to increasing quantities of carbon in the atmosphere.

Processes in the development, manufacture, deployment and use of armaments of all types release enormous amounts of carbon. These do not seem to be quantified and included in calculations of proximity of irreversible climate change.

Faster than expected increases in global warming and associated climate changes have been reported and often dismissed without being linked causally with any specific factor.

It is in this regard that I feel some quantification of the carbon debt of wars should be made and publicised.

Sadly, I feel direct contributions of armaments and their use are minor in comparison with the carbon costs of reconstruction. Construction based on concrete is known to be a major contributor to increase of greenhouse gases and scales of devastation in Gaza, Lebanon and Ukraine are high.

I cannot be at all optimistic that current and future climate change will be managed unless a full debate can be mounted and presented to inter alia the justices who deem custodial sentences an appropriate punishment for "public inconvenience".

It is more than likely that the public may find greater inconvenience facing them this century.

Dr Andrew Hawkins, Kettlebridge, Fife.