IT is not often that I support an SNP politician’s point of view but on this occasion, I agree with Stephen Flynn in his assumption that he could fulfil the dual mandate of Holyrood MSP and Westminster MP, until he capitulated under pressure. This practice, otherwise known as “double jobbing”, was enacted before him by John Swinney, Alex Salmond, and the hapless Douglas Ross.

My belief is that this practice should be vigorously pursued by all members of both parliaments but without the accompanying dual salaries. In this way the total number of politicians representing our interests could be returned to pre-Assembly levels with the associated cost savings.

It has long been my assertion that the farcical situation of having a devolved assembly in Scotland with the associated additional layer of bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. With 57 MPs at Westminster, there is absolutely no need for Scotland to have a further 129 MSPs at Holyrood, housed in an expensive carbuncle in Edinburgh along with their excessive salaries, expenses, ministerial limousines and proto embassies around Europe and America.

Scotland has not fared well in recent years under the current parliamentary rules irrespective of the incumbent ruling party, with drug deaths continuing to be the highest in Europe, the ever-increasing attainment gap, child poverty on the increase and the collapse in education standards. In terms of numbers of MPs, this equates to approximately 98,000 people per MP in Scotland from a population of 5.58 million and approximately 105,000 per MP in England from a population of 57 million.

Surely our Scottish MPs at Westminster are just as capable of managing their constituents’ interests as their English colleagues, which compounds the notion that a devolved assembly up here is totally gratuitous.

Christopher H Jones, Giffnock.

Read more letters

Scotland really needs Holyrood

JILL Stephenson (Letters, November 25) decries the Holyrood system but concentrates on individual MSPs. She writes that the judge and jury in Michael Matheson's case was John Swinney, but in fact his punishment was decided by the all-party Holyrood Standards Committee on the casting vote of the chair.

Ms Stephenson criticises but offers no alternatives. Holyrood has limited powers, is not allowed to borrow and has little input to decisions made at Westminster which have consequences here. A clear example of this is immigration. With an ageing population Scotland needs to attract migrants, yet immigration powers are exclusively in the hands of Westminster, as is employment law.

Scotland’s parliament has achieved much with the devolved powers we have; look at Social Security Scotland, which had introduced seven new benefits only available here.

With the new Labour Government's recent damaging announcements impacting on pensioners and welfare claimants, thank goodness we have our Scottish Parliament. Holyrood has demonstrated time and time again our differing priorities by stepping in and mitigating many of Westminster's damaging policies. Ms Stephenson may want to take on board the massive difference it is making in tackling child poverty, lifting 325,000 children out of poverty with the Scottish Child Payment, available nowhere else in the UK.

We need our parliament, because regardless of the make-up of Scotland’s MPs we are vastly outnumbered in Westminster. In the interest of Scotland and her people, Holyrood must be afforded more devolved powers as promised in the "Vow" of 2014. A good start in light of announcements by this new Labour Government would be devolving full welfare powers.

Catriona C Clark, Falkirk.

Indy figures are encouraging

THE votes for independence continue to ride high in the polls with the numbers in favour fairly constant at around 48%-55%.

What is really encouraging is that there is a clear indication of much higher percentages from our younger voters. suggesting that in the fullness of time independence will become an inevitability. This is quite amazing given the amount of mud that is constantly slung in the direction of those who support independence.

I note that the leader of one of the minor parties in Scotland has declared that independence is “dead in the water” ("Russell Findlay: The dream of Scottish independence is dead", heraldscotland, September 29). It would be helpful if he kept up to date with current voting trends.

In addition, I’ve just read that the leader of one of the other minor parties has declared that if even one penny in the next Budget is directed towards independence, then he will not support it ("Independence red line is drawn for Lib Dems to support the SNP’S upcoming Scottish Budget", The Herald, November 25).

Hopefully the independence-supporting 48/55% remember their position at future elections.

Stewart Falconer, Alyth.

Make taxes simpler and fairer

I ENJOYED reading David J Crawford's fictional ideas (Letters, November 25) and wonder how much his imaginary monarch is invested in farm land? Not that he would be troubled by any change to inheritance tax, of course.

Reflecting on the recent Budget and its fallout, I am puzzled by Labour's attempt to fix the legacy left by the previous administration. Of course tax increases will always be met by resistance from those affected. So it is not surprising that businesses object to higher National Insurance and minimum wage payments and farmers to new inheritance tax rules. In truth, most of us will end up paying more one way or another. But what about the super-rich? Will they notice much difference?

One Budget was never going to fix everything. But the sense I have is that Labour's approach is blunt, too timid and poorly explained. It hasn't tested policy changes properly, like cutting winter fuel allowance from pensioners who would be eligible for Pension Credit but haven’t and probably won't apply for those benefits. Equally, the farm inheritance tax change, as it stands, will likely disadvantage and probably put out of business those who are asset-rich but cash-poor, when the main target should be those using farm land as a loophole.

No wonder there are so many loopholes. Our tax legislation is so complex that it runs to over 21,000 pages, according to my internet research, and is reckoned to be the longest in the world. The only beneficiaries of this are the super-wealthy, their lawyers and financial advisors.

Sometimes I feel that our priorities are all wrong. Anas Sarwar hasn't said how, but he will sort out the winter fuel allowance, won't he? Why doesn't Labour try to just make taxes simpler and fairer? I'd vote for that change.

David Bruce, Troon.

Westminster's sabotage

BLAIR Bowman (Letters, November 23) fails to mention that the industry-operated Deposit Return Scheme evolved over years through discussions with all interested parties and the Scottish Government first raised the issue of a potential UK Internal Market Act veto with the UK Government in 2021, which everyone knew.

The UK Government sabotaged this devolved issue and should be liable for any compensation claims. At the time, the Welsh Climate Minister Julie James said the UK Government was acting as the English Government on the “no glass” issue and that the UK Internal Market Act does not allow one nation to veto the others.

However, on November 18, the Welsh Government announced that will create a deposit return scheme for Wales after pulling out of a UK-wide approach which did not include glass bottles, as it can’t wait for Labour in London to expedite matters.

Many of the same vested interests that opposed the Deposit Return Scheme also attempted to delay and frustrate minimum pricing and the smoking ban, where Scotland led the way, but their fears proved to be unfounded and the health and environmental benefits plain to see.

Westminster is moving at a snail’s pace on its deposit return scheme but should catch up with Scotland in a couple of years’ time when the politically motivated opposition will evaporate quicker than it takes me to sink a pint.

Fraser Grant, Edinburgh.

Should the Scottish Parliament have more powers, or should it be axed?Should the Scottish Parliament have more powers, or should it be axed? (Image: Getty)

Start again on care plans

HELEN McArdle’s analysis piece on the National Care Service ("National care service plan has been confused since the start", The Herald, November 23) provides much-needed light on the discussion that recently has produced only heat.

As with most policy developments, for fuller understanding you need only follow the power and the money. The Government desperately needs to change the narrative about the chaos of our care system, while facilitating the private investors propping up the elderly care system. Throw in some more token standards and regulatory bodies and it’s good to go.

The potential profit margins in our expanding elderly care sector and complying with budget restrictions on public spending are all that will ever matter. The public investment needed to provide fit for purpose services will remain the elephant in the room, while the voices and needs of the many other groups who rely on care services will never be heard. With £28 million of public money already wasted let’s stop this now and go back to the drawing board.

Duncan F MacGillivray, Dunoon.