AT last we are beginning to have a real debate about possible tax rises and I am heartened to see that a recent poll shows a substantial willingness amongst Scots to contribute a little more (Two thirds of Scottish voters say they’d pay more taxes, The National, September 15). In spite of my reduced circumstances as a pensioner, I would still be happy to pay a little more to enhance our public services, such as the NHS, welfare for the needy and free education at all levels, from which I benefitted from – unlike my mother, who had to abandon her degree when the money ran out.

At the moment, however, I begrudge every penny of my small tax burden. I resent the fact that it helps to pay for Trident, which most Scots do not want: for its replacement and the new submarines being built in Barrow-in-Furness. For HS2, which will never come to Scotland. For a new sewage system for London. For the new bridge over the Thames now in the planning stages.For the refurbishment of Westminster (while we had to pay for a Holyrood building that Westminster commissioned) and of Buckingham Palace. For the recently completed Crossrail section and the next phase of it now in planning. For the bombing of Syria and foreign wars we object to. For Hinckley Point nuclear power station, to be built and run by foreign companies at guaranteed double current costs. For salaries and expenses of MPs in numbers always able to outvote our representatives. For £300 per day for more than 800 unelected Lords. For £1 billion to buy support for the Tories whom the electorate denied a majority. From not one of these – and many more expenses like them – does Scotland receive any benefit whatsoever.

On the other side of the coin, we are told – on estimated and highly suspect figures – that we have an ongoing annual deficit while receiving handouts from Westminster. These will be the handouts that see us supplying nearly 80 per cent of oil revenues over 40 years, which helped to pay for the M5 completion, M3, M40 and M25 amongst other major public projects while the M8 was only completed very recently, we are still waiting for our main artery to the Highlands being fully dualled, and many of the single-track roads now twin track have been budgeted for by our devolved parliament aided by grants from the EU. Add that we were denied the chance to lead the world in carbon capture, invented in Scotland, and have had research funding taken away from a world-leading tidal power project, just as its initial trials exceed expectation.

Can the Westminster Government tell us exactly how much we pay in tax in its various forms each year? If not, why not and how, therefore, do they know if we have a deficit? There must be many questions worthy of a freedom of information request. What is our annual share of military spend in Scotland? Are the taxes on wages and salaries of naval/other military personnel employed in Scotland (including at Faslane and Coulport) credited to Scotland as Treasury income? If not, why not? Do companies with only a nominal head office in London but all operations – production, sales, exports etc – in Scotland have their and their employees taxes credited to Scotland? Questions such as these must be legion and are all unanswered.

Existing taxes to Westminster, to my mind, are money down the drain for Scotland. When our tax benefits Scotland, I will happily accept a rise for the greater good, even if it straitens my circumstances further. Roll on independence!

L McGregor

Falkirk

I NOTED with interest the article by Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (Henry VIII powers ... a very British coup d’état, The National, September 15). Gordon was of course addressing a topic which has received a lot of attention recently, relating to how the May government is attempting to control the Westminster Parliament without her party having a majority.

We have heard a great deal about how her ministers are going to use Henry VIII “powers” to control the Westminster Parliament, which we are told has no written constitution and can have laws passed by Henry VIII pulled out of history and applied today.

Well that is constitutional rubbish. No such powers exist in a British Parliament, and if they were voted for in the Westminster Parliament tomorrow they would be unconstitutional and a clear breach of the Treaty of Union (1707). The Treaty of Union does in fact form a written part of the British constitution. In accordance with the Treaty of Union, which was accepted by the Scottish and also by the English Parliament, then both these parliaments would cease to exist and a new British Parliament would be established at Westminster.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think you will find that Henry the VIII died in the 16th century and the British Parliament was only just established at the beginning of the 18th century. So any Act of Law passed by Henry the VIII would be as relevant as an Act passed by James the IV of Scotland – it would not be relevant to the British Parliament.

The English consider that the “British” and the “English” parliament are interchangeable terms. Where “British” appears you can substitute “English” and it means the same. That may be a common feature found among British politicians and the British media; but, in spite of that, it is not correct. The Scots Parliament and the English Parliament were both closed down in 1707 when the new British Parliament was established.

There is not, nor can there ever be, any statute in the British Parliament which was signed by Henry the VIII or by James the IV, because they were both dead before the Parliament was established.

Andy Anderson

Saltcoats