Readers’ letters: Tax debate should focus on overall cost and quality of life

Far from driving workers away, as some commentators claim, UK government data obtained by the Scottish government through a Freedom of Information request shows that more taxpayers – including higher earners – are choosing to move north of the Border. This is boosting Scotland’s tax base and undermining claims that its tax policies are deterring people from living and working here.

It is also worth remembering that income tax is only one part of the picture. Scottish households, for example, pay less council tax on average than those in England. Scottish students benefit from free university tuition, while students south of the Border can face fees of more than £9,000 a year. Prescriptions are also free in Scotland, compared with charges of more than £9 per item in England.

Nor should we forget that well-funded public services are an important part of what makes somewhere an attractive place to live, work and raise a family.

Most Scottish taxpayers pay less income tax than their counterparts in England, while those with the broadest shoulders are asked to contribute more. The debate about tax should therefore be based on the overall cost and quality of living in Scotland, rather than focusing on one tax rate in isolation.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Skewed market

David J Alexander’s article “Property taxation must be nearing its tipping point” (Scotsman, 6 August) reminds us that though levies on real estate have the huge advantage of not being evadable, they are avoidable: ie folk can move to places with a more benevolent tax regime.

Let's not forget that real estate consists of two elements: the bricks-and-mortar, and the land beneath. These react differently to taxation, with higher levies on buildings themselves leading to lower investment in improvements, extensions, etc. In contrast, higher taxes on site values have no deleterious effect: they are even socially beneficial in that they simply recover for the community what it has, mainly through infrastructure investments, created.

The author is correct to say that “the housing market is integral to the health of the economy”. Sadly, it is chronically skewed by economically damaging speculation; houses should be for living in, no more.

George Morton, Rosyth, Fife

Trade waste

One of the houses across the street from us has spent the last six months being completely renovated and remodelled and I have been appalled by the degree of wastage. There have been several skips of new timber – substantial lengths of 2x4, sheet after sheet of chipboard, plywood and hardboard, some unused and obviously ordered but surplus to requirement, pallets, sheets of plastic film and a great deal of cardboard. Some could have been re-used, the rest could have been recycled. All mixed in together with bricks, plaster, rubbish etc and clearly destined for landfill.

I do wonder why we householders bother to recycle when builders clearly couldn’t care less – especially when they have a duty of care. The rules state: “All businesses in Scotland have a legal obligation to separate their waste for recycling and dispose of it via a licensed waste carrier. This is called your duty of care and is part of the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012.”

Perhaps the council, as well as organising recycling on a domestic level, should be much tougher on regulating trade waste – which, if typical of what I have been seeing, is wasting resources on an industrial scale.

Barry Hughes, Edinburgh

Divided party

SNP membership numbers are falling but the party feels that it still has enough money to remove Peter Murrell’s now-infamous campervan from the party’s tangible assets (your report, 7 August)

It is not, however, just membership numbers falling. The SNP hierarchy is falling out with each other too. It used to be Salmond versus Sturgeon, now it is Sturgeon versus Swinney.

We all know a divided party fails so, on that basis, are we witnessing the endgame for the SNP? No political party can stay in power for years without egos getting in the way. John Swinney thinks he is now in command on the bridge. Nicola Sturgeon thinks she never relinquished command. More members will almost certainly now desert this sinking ferry, This craft might have been built on the Clyde but it looks as if it is simply spinning and going nowhere. Its moral compass has broken down.

Gerald Edwards, Glasgow

Spot on

On behalf of the Scottish Leopards Society, East Lothian branch, I would like to ask for an apology from Brian Barbour (Letters, 7 August) for drawing comparisons to our society and the shambles of the SNP regime in Edinburgh. As stated, we do not change our spots, but regarding oil and gas, it is patently obvious the SNP do.

Further, they never complete a project – apart from baby boxes – whereas we, when hunting, successfully complete one in three hunts, with lions averaging one in five and cheetahs one in ten (still better than one in 20 years from the SNP).

I could go on Mr Barbour re the hurt caused but we think we know what you meant.

Leo Pard, branch secretary (aka David Millar), Lauder, Scottish Borders

National debt

In his response (Letters, 5 August) to my own previous letter, Charles Lowson of Fareham, Hampshire, suggests keeping – indeed, expanding – the role of the state departments of Scotland and Wales and, instead, reversing devolution. By that he means to close the Holyrood and Senedd parliaments; and revert to complete Westminster control of all of our affairs.

In passing, he refers to “UK national debt” – ie debt that has been run up solely by successive Westminster governments, whilst imposing austerity across all of the UK. Debt that has been added to because of the damage done by the Brexit vote of, primarily, England – and subsequently supported by both Tory and Labour governments in Westminster.

No thanks, Mr Lowson. If the power of any wasteful, malfunctioning parliament has to be removed for Scotland’s benefit – functional and financial – it’s the one in London.

That will allow Scotland to put our own affairs in order; and free England to do the same with theirs.

Ian Waugh, Dumfries

Power points

Robert Menzies (Letters, 6 August) informs us that France had to shut down two of its nuclear power plants because of a temporary lack of cooling water. France still manages to provide about 10 per cent of UK electricity. A few days ago our entire fleet of 12,000 wind turbines (installed capacity 32 GW) managed to provide just 1 per cent of our needs – by no means a rare occurrence.

The main trouble with all so-called renewable energy sources is lack of power density. This means covering the country/sea with generators and a huge expansion to the distribution network. Wave power would be a particularly bad choice. The short life of all of these systems (25 years at best) means passing on to our descendants a huge quantity (millions of tons) of non-renewable waste. Incidentally (and a little bit tongue-in-cheek) let me inform readers that a single large wind turbine pours out about 200kW of waste heat – global warming!

I think that people who are against nuclear power for Scotland should declare their non-acceptance of hospital diagnostic scans, such as CT, and radiotherapy treatment, which are of course dependent on the products of nuclear reactors.

A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries

No deterrent

With regard to letters yesterday and previous, I wonder if it is not within the bounds of possibility that an oligarch with vast territories and a huge subservient population might reckon that any nuclear retaliation Nato could mount might be absorbed as an acceptable price to pay for what he considers to be victory?

S Beck, Edinburgh

Big boys’ bombs

Andrew HN Gray accuses me of ignorance (Letters, 7 August). Yes, I have heard of Nato, and have been grateful for its protection when asked to sing in Sarajevo at the tail end of the Bosnian war, flying there with my Belgian colleagues in a Nato Hercules.

Perhaps if he paid more attention to what I wrote, he might have noticed the word “independent” in my letter.

Our defence pact with Nato of an attack on one being an attack on all has nothing to do with whether the UK has an independent nuclear deterrent. Those countries I cited, as I am well aware, are members of Nato, but lack our independent nuclear deterrent. Why do we need it? Answer – er, we’ve always had it and we like being one of the big boys. Not a great argument!

Brian Bannatyne-Scott, Edinburgh

Hired guns

There are jobs where you can earn £27,000 pa from day one. There are plenty of vacancies and multi-trade training is on offer. Enlist in the army navy or air force.

Alastair Paisley, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.