AS the statements of Alexander McKay (“every single project the SNP touches, without exception, fails”, Letters, October 1) and those arguing against self-determination become increasingly ridiculous, it is evident to others that in spite of the recent trials and tribulations of the SNP core support for independence of around half of the population has not declined.

In fact, given the demise of the UK economically, socially and democratically it is only a matter of time (as I suspect Mr McKay and the decreasing numbers beguiled by the long-past days of Empire are aware combined with the UK Government's court-defying determination to hide polling figures) before more people in Scotland determine that our country can manage its resources better than a UK Government that has failed over decades to level-up England, never mind level-up the whole of the UK.

While governments around the world do not have a good track record of completing major infrastructure projects on time and within budget, if Mr McKay were to take a short drive he would encounter evidence that perhaps the SNP Scottish Government is the exception that proves the rule. There are, of course, examples of projects that have not gone to plan (as has been repeatedly highlighted in the media in Scotland), but the Queensferry Crossing stands as a laudable example across the UK of what can be achieved. The M74 extension was completed eight months ahead of time and £20 million under budget, which is in stark contrast to the late and hugely over-budget costs associated with budgeted enhancements of the M25 around London. Meanwhile, according to UK minister James Cleverly, £33 billion has already been spent on HS2.

Some arguments can legitimately be made by those wishing to maintain the constitutional status quo, but, as ex-PM Liz Truss has proven, superior economic management by the UK Government is not one of those arguments.

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.

Give us the facts on ferries

AT a time when Scottish islanders should be hoping for the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa to finally make an appearance over the horizon, it seems that more doubts are arising over their spiralling costs and operational ability.

A £400 million-plus price tag; a lack of confidence in the liquefied natural gas propulsion system and whether the sea trials will be plain sailing or not, have been thrown into the mix, bringing the possibility of further delays. When will it ever end, or will it?

All the while Humza Yousaf refuses to allow the Auditor General to look into how public money was spent on the project prior to nationalisation. What is there to hide and why should taxpayers be kept in the dark about what has happened to their money? It seems highly likely that there will be more choppy waters ahead for the troubled project with the public purse again being raided to pay for mismanagement and incompetence.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen.

Read more: Labour has given up on serious politics with impossible promises

Holyrood does not have control

DR Jim Hay (Letters, October 1) points out that “that the SNP has governed the nation for 16 years with absolute control over the NHS, education and the economy and its performance in each sphere of activity has been utterly appalling”.

Certainly it is the case that the Scottish electorate have made the SNP the largest Holyrood party four elections in a row, but that hardly supports Dr Hay’s case, does it? However, during that time the revenue it has available to spend is approximately 60% of spending in, or on behalf of, Scotland, but the remaining 40% is determined in Westminster, so the Scottish Government has no influence either on its quantum or its allocation.

It does, though, determine allocation for devolved matters, but no influence on its quantum, as it is a function of spending in the remainder of the UK, which is determined at Westminster by a party with six MPs in Scotland.

Moreover, increasingly Westminster intervenes on devolved matters, either through legal means (for example, Section 30) or the “Levelling Up” agenda, or through the Internal Market Act which requires the Scottish Government to allow sale of goods (for example agriculture and fish) produced elsewhere in the UK even if to lower safety standards.

Thus, Dr Hay’s claim of “absolute control” is quite wrong, as the Scottish Government is significantly restricted by the influence of Westminster in financial and delivery terms on devolved matters, which are, in any case, being undermined.

Moreover, he quotes the extra £6 billion in spending allocated by the Barnett formula as though this is some form of largesse, when it is an estimate of what Westminster would spend in Scotland were it not for devolution. In short, it reflects Scotland’s needs, which, in a “needs-based” Union in which devolution has only operated for 24 of the 316 years of the Union, reflect Westminster rule more than anything else.

Lastly the £6bn quoted is from the increasingly-discredited GERS report which itself is quite clear that it reflects Scotland’s position under current constitutional arrangements and thus not independence.

Alasdair Galloway, Dumbarton.

Council tax must be rethought

THE Scottish Government seems to think that it is fine to allow SNP-led councils to close heath, fitness and educational buildings yet allow addicts to be given, and inject, illegal drugs in NHS property.

To pay for all this it proposes to double some council tax bands, a tax it does not agree with. What about the ones who live in ex-council houses, who bought them for buttons and extended them, and are still in Band A? Why doesn't the Government re-band them and stop picking on the so-called wealthy, with many of them being pensioners and having homes with smaller footprints?

John Russell, Airdrie.

Sepa cut is no surprise

IT was no surprise to read that Sepa and NatureScot’s budgets have been slashed yet again by the Scottish Government ("Concern as Scots Gov cuts Sepa’s funding by one-quarter", October 1). We have witnessed the decline in their ability to scrutinise and respond to wind farm applications for more than a decade due to their lack of resources. This of course suits the Scottish Government and developers down to the ground as there is less opposition to their plans: eye-watering profits for developers and millions in rent for the Government when planning permission is granted for development on public land.

This is a gross conflict of interest as it is the Scottish ministers who give consent to large-scale wind farms and they are therefore effectively lining the Government's own pockets. Non-domestic rates from wind turbines on private land are also collected by councils and paid directly to the Scottish Government, resulting in another nice wee earner.

The Scottish Government knows that consultees, including local authorities, are already hard pushed to respond to applications in time if at all, but despite that it is hell-bent on reducing planning determination timescales. This will also make it virtually impossible for rural communities to fund-raise in time to employ professional help.

The Government is doing a grand job of cutting off all opposition from all directions to its plans to wreck this once-spectacular country.

Aileen Jackson, Uplawmoor.

Read more: It's not men against women: it's horrible people versus the rest of us

The benefits migrants bring

THERE needs to be a wider debate taking into account the advantages of immigration to the UK.

For instance, the International Monetary Fund, while acknowledging that “a major reason why people migrate is income differences between origin and destination countries” suggests that immigration “to advanced economies increases output and productivity both in the short and medium term… as immigrants and native workers bring to the labour market a diverse set of skills, which complement each other and increase productivity”.

So let us have that open, informed, indeed urgent debate I call for. Let not a typically-Conservative ill-informed debate on immigration promoted by right-wing extremists add to the woes that such a debate on Brexit inflicted upon us.

I recently read in the Irish Times that EU countries are well on their way to agreeing a compromise on how to deal with surges of irregular migration: “Countries that receive large numbers of irregular migrants would be able to ask for assistance from other EU member states, which could choose to either offer financial aid, take over processing of some asylum claims, or take in some migrants themselves.”

And the UK was sufficiently ill-advised (literally) to have left the EU. By the way, should there be large-scale global population movements, one of the causes will be global warming, the consequences of which many Conservatives have sought to deny.

John Milne, Uddingston.

Time to cull the public sector

THE Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has revealed that last year the average public sector worker took almost twice as much sick leave as those in the private sector: public sector employees, 10.6 days, private 5.8 days. Could this mean that public sector managers are turning a blind eye to staff absences and sick leave?

Once I knew a man who worked in the public sector. After lunch one day we said we would see him tomorrow. "No," he said, "I am taking one of my sick days."

The Taxpayers' Alliance has established that public sector employees are paid seven per cent more than those in the private sector and employees in the public sector get 30 days' holidays a year whereas the private sector averages 25 days.

It gets worse. In 2019 there were 5.385 million employed in the public sector. In June 2023 it had risen to 5.74 million. An unsustainable 355,000 extra feeding at the taxpayers' trough. No wonder our taxes are so cripplingly high. A cull is long overdue.

Clark Cross, Linlithgow.