Letter: Committee at fault, not the professors

When Profs Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott appeared before this committee they quite reasonably expected to be subjected to questions about the Scotland Bill, regarding which they had submitted 16 pages of written evidence.

Instead of being asked about this evidence, they were rudely interrogated about a passage in a paper not directly relevant to the Scotland Bill, written some time ago and not submitted as evidence to this committee.

When Sir Kenneth Calman, who chaired the commission that gave rise to this legislation, and Professor Anton Muscatelli, who chaired the experts group for Calman, appeared before the Scotland Bill Committee they were not exposed to the rude interrogation applied to Hughes Hallett and Scott.

There are serious concerns that the income tax provisions of this legislation would see Scottish income tax revenues fall below the amount needed to compensate for the amount that would be withdrawn from the Barnett formula block grant.

Mr McLetchie's noble concern to "get at the truth of the evidence" seems to have been notable for its absence when faced with this opportunity to question the Calman progenitors of the Scotland Bill legislation on this important issue. If Mr McLetchie and other members of the Scotland Bill Committee want to pursue an agenda other than scrutinising this piece of legislation they obviously need to be moved on.

This issue will not go away until the Scottish Parliament acts decisively to ensure that this committee does what it was set up to do.

(Prof) Rod Cross

Partickhill Road

Glasgow

I feel sorry for Profs Hughes Hallett and Scott (Letters, 25 January) because I invariably prefer expert evidence before any other. However, with the greatest respect to both, there comes a time when theory is contradicted by our own experience.

The professors say most economists support their view "that fiscal decentralisation can be expected to improve economic performance".

But Scots already have many experiences of devolution. Our health boards were broken down into hospital trusts and their finance departments multiplied into many, each having its own director, its own staff, computer and multiple other services. All at a whopping cost.

And our large regional councils also got split up into smithereens, again, complete with extra staff, officials, machinery and shiny new headquarter buildings. Council tax bills went through the roof.

Before devolution, the big, cumbersome authorities enjoyed "economies of scale", but nowadays, that's a phrase you'll never hear. No wonder.

Robert Veitch

Paisley Drive

Edinburgh

The correspondence about expert evidence and witnesses in the Scottish Parliament is important.

It highlights an inability in our Scottish society to pull together and seek the best possible information to inform decision-making.

During 13 years as an Edinburgh city councillor I was often amazed at the territorialism of council staff who ignored sound academic research and produced somewhat inferior information, and more seriously, advice in their committee papers for councillors.

I work as a research librarian. Though still active politically, I have no partisan axe to grind. I just want the best possible parliament for Scotland.

Moyra Forrest

Starbank Road

Edinburgh

Isn't there a valuable lesson to be drawn from David McLetchie's letter regarding economic evidence? (Letters, 24 January).

The issue of choosing between the status quo of devolution, increased taxation powers, or full fiscal autonomy is political.

How far can one have value free economics? Take, for example, the differences between the late Milton Friedman and John Kenneth Galbraith.

Shouldn't discussion of different options for the future development of the political structure of the UK consider a federal system?

Ellis Thorpe

Old Chapel Walk

Inverurie