Alternative take: DR MAYER, of Currie, disputes the need for a Scotland secretary

Published on Monday 6 October 2008 21:12

TAXPAYERS should be concerned that the Prime Minister missed the opportunity in his recent reshuffle (your report, 4 October) to eliminate the post of Scottish secretary.

After all, there is a precedent: when Tony Blair formed his 2001 Cabinet, he did not appoint anyone to the post. Only when it was realised that legislation was littered with references to "the Secretary of State for Scotland" was the then transport secretary appointed to do both jobs part-time.

The only prominence the occupant has is monthly, at Scottish Questions in the Commons, when he has to answer questions on matters reserved to Westminster that affect Scotland. But he has no responsibility for these issues; they are handled by the relevant Whitehall department. So the Scottish secretary is simply a mouthpiece to enunciate answers provided by these departments.

Why should equivalent regions in England, with no dedicated minister, have to wait their turn to question Whitehall ministers, while Scotland has a privileged position?

It is being openly stated that the raison d'tre of the new incumbent, Jim Murphy, will be to tackle Alex Salmond head-on.

While that may be a legitimate pastime, taxpayers should not be funding the post – the cost of Labour Party propaganda should be borne out of party funds.