IT is understandable that the Government should look to taxation to raise money to improve resources in state schools. It is less obvious that they should raise that money by taxing the one section of the community which already pays extra for state education (“An honest message on private schools: please stop your moaning”, The Herald, November 2). Mark Smith’s defence of taxing these parents appears to be that most of them can probably afford it which reads more like class warfare than justified taxation.

Those parents who send their children to private education pay their share of the costs of state education through the taxation system but, in addition, contribute further to those costs by relieving the state from the costs of teaching their own children.

There is a fundamental reason why, in the interests of the whole community, the Government should not allow itself to put financial pressure upon those parents to take their children out of the private sector. This is selective taxation which threatens the future viability of private education. The availability of private education is an essential underpinning of democratic freedom. This was clearly illustrated by the SNP Government when it elected to reduce the voting age of children in Scotland to 16 at the time of the 2014 referendum. That event, along with other evidence, showed that that government was at least aware of the potential of improving its prospects of political success by influencing what was taught in the state schools such as by teaching apocryphal Scottish history or by appointing and promoting according to political leaning. Even if there were no deliberate political interference in state schools, the very possibility of that occurrence is sufficient to show that it is essential that the education of schoolchildren should never fall within the exclusive monopoly of the state and that there should always be a place for non-state education.

We must bear in mind that the indoctrination of the Hitler Youth was rooted in a democratic state and nether home nor private schooling which meets legal standards should be put in a less favourable position than state education such as by aggressive, targeted taxation.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

Read more letters

Trans struggle will go on

THE final words of Irene Munro's letter (November 4) seem to make clear her views: she says that trans people are "acting out in an attempt to be someone they are not". In fact, centuries of evidence and lived experience attest to the reality of trans people's identities.

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, many people described gay people like me as "acting out". They said it was "common sense" that humans evolved to be heterosexual, and that homosexuality was therefore not natural. At best, LGB people were fooling ourselves, and many said our "ideology" was disordered and a risk to others. The prevalence of those views, then, did huge harm to LGB people.

After a long, contested struggle, with campaigns in the streets, speaking up in the media, debating in parliaments, and much else in between, things have changed. LGB people are now quite widely recognised in Scotland as a welcome part of humanity's diversity. For trans people that struggle for equality has further to go, and their freedom to get on with their lives as the people they know they are is still contested in those same harmful ways.

Hate crime against LGBT people remains all too common too. Ms Munro is right that no-one should be subjected to hate crime, whether on account of their views, their sexual orientation, their gender identity, or for any other reason. But it is not a crime to flag up the harm that prejudice and discrimination do. Irene Munro describes people who speak up for trans equality as an "autocratic" and "dictatorial elite". I don't think I am any of those three things, and I don't plan to stop speaking out.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.

We have to talk about churches

I RECENTLY attended a conference in Paisley Abbey, and I’m left wondering whether “Building a sustainable future for Scottish churches” isn’t an issue which demands more of a national conversation rather than it be left to the commitment of bands of volunteers across Scotland, all chasing the same limited pool of funds and expertise. It doesn’t sound a sensible joined-up approach, especially when it concerns a significant part of Scotland’s, often ancient, built heritage.

There are undoubtedly too many church buildings serving too few attendees, but it is not a given that these buildings can easily be transformed to another financially sustainable purpose. Does that make them valueless?

Alongside that is the divestment by local authorities of their community facilities which are no longer measured by their value in terms of their contribution to the overall community good but their ability to turn a profit. We should have been more alert when some years ago they were hived off into the control of ALEOs.

It is not impossible to imagine a future where many small communities across Scotland won’t have any space where they can gather, that belongs to them. In the face of that, ideas about 20-minute neighbourhoods and community empowerment look redundant. There needs to be a more strategic, national response.

Florence Boyle, Old Kilpatrick.

A demonstration in favour of transgender rightsA demonstration in favour of transgender rights (Image: PA)

Can we get our language back?

FOR some unknown reason we are told about " the word of the year". Often it is a new word but this year it is "brat", an old word with a new meaning ("Brat is Collins Dictionary's Word of the Year 2024", heraldscotland, November 1). Old words like "gay" and "brass neck" also mean something different to that in my youth. I know that language evolves but sometimes it just becomes confusing.

Likewise abbreviations become standard such as " elly " or " dis", or are these just lazy shortenings?

We all have accents and I do not mind Tess Daly introducing "joodges" in Strictly, but some of the accents and grammar of sportsmen are "worser". Sportscene is embarrassing at times. (Managers from other countries have excellent English.) Cockney rhyming slang is fun but not everybody understands it or its derivation such as "cobblers" yet it sometimes comes up in quizzes. (I came across one lady who thought that "Brahms and Listz" referred to classical music.) Can we get our language back to simple communication and composition in order that we all understand it?

JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.

Methinks he's wrong

IF David Edgar (Letters, November 4) is going to correct other people he should try to be accurate himself. The line from Hamlet is actually "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Colin Aldridge, Glasgow.