Letter: Holyrood needs no further tax powers

I am grateful to The Scotsman for providing, over the entire festive season, such full coverage of the issue of tax-raising powers for the Scottish Parliament, both in Perspective articles and in many letters to the editor (18 January).

Whenever this question is raised, I have a vision of MSPs marching round the Holyrood building holding placards saying: "Look at me! I take my full share of responsibility for raising the money that the parliament spends on public services."

However, the views of the ordinary non-political person in the street are very different. I do not know any person around about here in favour of Holyrood using the tax-raising powers that it has, or, worse still, acquiring new tax-raising powers.

We have learned a lot in the course of The Scotsman-led debate on the fate of the existing Scottish variable rate (SVR) and on the likely response of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to any proposal for another Holyrood tax, for example the proposed tax on the sales by large retailers.

The SVR is shelved, partly because the SNP says there is no party that wishes to use it - surely a doubtful claim - but also because HMRC would not be in a position to implement it for some years. Ditto any other proposed new tax, whether on income or on sales.

Furthermore, the cost of HMRC setting up separate tax-raising assessment and collection procedures in Scotland would be payable from the Scottish Parliament budget. The mind boggles at the likely complications.

Separate tax codes for Scottish residents, even where they are employed by UK companies? A whole department of civil servants to administer and collect a Scottish sales tax?

It is time that Salmond & Co, and sympathisers in other parties realised that Scotland is a part of a single UK-based economy and that any attempt to unravel this faces insuperable difficulties, especially in these difficult times for the UK economy. There is no mandate for this, as the SNP would quickly discover if they ever seriously proposed it.

Just what is wrong with the Barnett Formula? It provides sums of money under what are known as the Barnett Consequentials and it is open to the Scottish Parliament to introduce variations in how this money is spent in accordance with Scottish priorities and requirements.

The only limits that I know on this "virement" power are some UK and EU laws and Scottish public opinion. Surely a reasonable position in a region of an EU country?

So let's have a "keep Barnett" campaign, for which there is support across all parties except the SNP. Other parties should stop jumping on the bandwagon, especially when one wheel after another is falling off.

Fred Forrester

North Larches

Dunfermline

IT CLEARLY states on the Scottish Parliamentary website regarding the role of committees that "to increase the effectiveness of meetings, committees carefully limit the number of witnesses selected to give oral evidence.

"They take great care to ensure a balanced representation and include all those with a major interest."

I have to concur that these two academics were singled out to be exposed on the matter of independence, and not the committee remit.

It seems bizarre that Wendy Alexander - who was the very public face of the Calman Commission - was allowed to question these two with such vigour, yet have her own association with Calman ignored.

Most people have not forgotten the public humiliation of Dr David Kelly by a similar committee in Westminster. But politicians must realise they are the servants of the people; their questioning and seeking of information is for the common good, not for self-gratification.

We all have our own views on politics and people, but there are many circumstances, especially in employment, where these must be set aside for civil and legal reasons as well as good manners and common sense.

The sad fact is that the committee failed in its brief from every conceivable form. The academics were right to complain. It was a complete waste of their time - but much worse, a waste of an opportunity to hear another version of the same presentation.

It was not for Wendy Alexander to judge - a convener should be impartial, not partisan, and thus she should be stripped of her position.

This is a great shame, as the Scottish Parliamentary Committee system has worked very well over the years, but there must be a firm hand in its future handling for those who feel they can, and want to, contribute.

Aileen Orr

Sunwick

Berwick-upon-Tweed

The furore over the way two senior Scottish academics were treated by a Holyrood committee has exposed some worrying attitudes among MSPs.

Firstly, it is suggested that committee members considering the Scotland Bill were justified in interrogating the academics on a paper they had written some time ago on fiscal autonomy, rather than on evidence relating to the Scotland Bill they had submitted to the committee, because the SNP government supports fiscal autonomy.

But the committee is considering the Scotland Bill (a piece of Westminster legislation), not the Scottish Government's position on fiscal autonomy. Given the importance of what is contained in the Scotland Bill, and the limited time available for MSPs to scrutinise it, common sense suggests that committee members should get to grips with the legislation in front of them before mounting attacks on fiscal autonomy.

Secondly, it also appeared from the committee proceedings that, because the Scottish Government had referenced their work on fiscal autonomy, the two academics were treated by some members as though they were there to give evidence on behalf of the SNP.

This seems to me to show a form of almost magical thinking, in which the authors of an independent study which was cited by the SNP were deemed, as a consequence of that, to have taken on the qualities of the SNP.By acting in this way, some MSPs are not only in danger of undermining the Scottish Parliament's reputation for fairness, they risk undermining public confidence in their ability to behave in a rational way.

Mhairi Hunter

Tantallon Road

Glasgow

Thank you Pauline McNeill and Robert Brown (Platform/Letters, 18 January) for telling it as it is.

The Scotland Bill committee had every right, if not a duty, to question closely and probe the witnesses; that is what they are paid to do on our behalf.

If those being questioned were discomfited then it would suggest the committee were doing their job. Do we really want only questioning approved by the SNP?

Taxpayers footing the bill have every right to know in detail how conclusions were reached in published papers.

Alexander McKay

New Cut Rigg

Edinburgh