YOU know, sometimes it feels great to be proved right. Perhaps it’s even better to be proved right at a moment when it could be possible to stop the harm you have predicted will take place.

I refer to your article, “Hammond’s tax hike leads to huge plunge in sales of whisky” (The National, October 12). I’ve lost track of the number of times I have written to you, and to the Scottish Government, expressing my concern over the proposed hike in price of a bottle of whisky that will arise from the SNP proposal to charge a minimum unit price on alcohol of 50p. Your article states that sales of whisky have dropped by 1 million bottles for the first six months of the year. It would surely be safe to assume the same result will apply to the second six months and sales will drop by a further million bottles. And this has come about through a tax hike of only 36p per bottle.

Quite rightly the SNP spokeswoman at Westminster is very concerned about the damage to the Scotch whisky industry that this tax hike has caused. However, there are 28 units in a 70cl bottle of whisky. That means that, under the SNP scheme, the minimum price retailers will be forced to charge for a bottle will be £14. I presently buy a cheap blend that costs me £11.49 per bottle. Therefore the SNP proposals will be a price hike of £2.51 per bottle and not a mere 36p. How much extra damage is this completely unjust extra charge going to cause?

I really do think that, although I personally don’t approve of the Chancellor’s tax hike, the SNP have no room to complain since they intend increasing the price of a bottle of whisky by about seven times the amount the Chancellor has applied. The Scottish Government should instead, as I’ve already proposed, be increasing the punishments for those causing the problems through the excessive alcohol they consume and their resulting bad behaviour. They should not be taking measures that will severely damage the home market of one of Scotland’s major industries, and indeed the pockets of those of us who sit quietly at home and don’t cause anybody any harm through our sensible drinking.

In view of MP Hannah Bardell’s comments, I might ask for her opinion about the massively larger price hike the SNP, of which she is a representative, intend making.

Quite honestly I can’t understand how the SNP can seriously expect continued support from people who are causing no harm to others but are going to be punished because of other people’s bad behaviour. Could this be part of the reason they lost 21 seats at the last General Election?

Charlie Kerr
Glenrothes

I READ with interest Alan Riach’s latest article on Scots writers in his series, Beyond the Kailyard (The National, October 13). I particularly enjoyed his review of the works of John Buchan, especially his comments on A Prince of the Captivity. This is perhaps one of his least well-known novels and always reminds me of the situation of our Scottish Unionist politicians.

Should anyone have forgotten their school-days Bible study, the Princes of the Captivity were those Jewish leaders and aristocrats who were allowed to retain the empty trappings of authority during the biblical expulsion of the Jews from Israel to Babylon. They personally lived pretty well, but in truth were just as much prisoners as the rest of that Jewish exodus, their lives controlled by alien masters.

Which reminds me of those Scottish Unionist politicians and peers currently enjoying their comfortable role as minor players in the Westminster charade. The price they pay for their comforts is, however, high, involving as it does a rejection of their native culture and identity. What, I wonder, is their fate after independence?

Peter Craigie
Edinburgh

I DO not understand why Police Scotland should have to pay VAT! It seems that Westminster can change the rules to allow other organisations to reclaim the VAT they have paid, as you report today (MSP: Tories must give £145m refund on police’s VAT bill). So why can’t they do the same for Police Scotland and also for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

The UK Government claims it is because these are national, not regional bodies. It is true that Scotland is a nation, but it is not a nation-state. If that were the case, the VAT would be paid to the government in Edinburgh and not London. In many respects, Scotland has the status of a region of the UK (or England) and is frequently treated that way by the Westminster government!

Shirley Robins
Dunoon