STOP the Westminster bus, because Scotland can run her own transport infrastructure systems and has been doing so since the establishment of the devolved government in Scotland in 1999.

Your front page, “Scotland ignored again in latest power grab” (August 25), said it all and is in connection with a transport review taking place at Westminster, which Scotland has not agreed to join.

Westminster and in particular David Duguid MP, Under-Secretary of State in the Scotland Office, must be fully aware that “transport” is a devolved matter to Holyrood. But allow me, in case there is any doubt, to inform Mr Duguid that my MSP Michael Matheson holds responsibility for transport in Scotland in his cabinet secretary’s brief of net zero, energy and transport.

But why is Westminster intent on imposing a review of Scotland’s transport needs, why are they holding out a cash offer if Scotland joins their review and why are they planning to railroad Holyrood and go direct to Scotland’s 32 local authorities regarding their transport review?

Well. I am sure there could be numerous answers to those questions. But regarding devolved matters at Holyrood, time and time again we hear Unionists call for the Scottish Government to get on with the day job and get their focus off independence.

As I have mentioned, “transport” requirements in Scotland are devolved to Holyrood, so comes under the business of the “day job” in Scotland and the Scottish Government must be allowed to get on with the day job regarding transport with no interference from Westminster.
Catriona C Clark

MR Duguid’s transport plan leads me to believe that somewhere in the House of Commons there is an instruction class for stupid statements.

In my area alone there is a massive project which involves

three or four roundabouts, half a mile of roadworks and it does not appear it will be finished for some time yet – it’s in its third year at present.

Roadworks, cycle paths and the ongoing street repairs surely take a good deal of the council budget, so I am sure too that South Lanarkshire’s share of £20 million pounds will buy a few traffic cones!

Maybe if Mr Duguid removed his head from his nether regions, borrowed a hard hat from Boris and actually looked carefully at what he is proposing will help road, rail and flight transport, he might be listened to.

It may be as I am elderly I got the figure wrong and it read £20 billion, in which case he can leave his head where it is!
James Ahern
East Kilbride

I WELCOME the article by the Scottish Independence Convention (SIC) written by Peter Ryan in Wednesday’s National. I have studied Peter’s earlier paper, SIC Transition Paper No 4, which was very interesting.

It is very good that we are now getting quite a lot published in The National from people with knowledge of the economic implications of currency and banking and opening up the debate in this important area. I note that this article is only extracts from Peter’s full paper and I am keen to read the full paper.

I do not see Peter’s point in staggering the introduction of the Scottish currency, but perhaps his paper will give me a better view of this. I do acknowledge Peter’s knowledge and interest in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and I believe we must be aware that this development will be significant in international finance when we are setting up the Scottish currency so we must take it into our planning ideas.

At long last The National has given a voice to this important issue of the Scottish currency and I am delighted with this development. I might not agree 100% with all the contributions on this subject but I have no hesitation in saying this debate is necessary for Scotland’s economic independence.
Andy Anderson
Via email

ONE advantage with social security spending that may not be obvious (over and above improving people’s lives) is that all the money will be spent and start to circulate in the local economy where it will generate taxes, and that helps the initial outlay find its way back to the public purse (‘Tremendously good news’ as Scotland’s economy set for faster growth than expected, August 26).

The actual “net cost” of this kind of spending is always lower than the headline figure. The “economic good” stretches beyond the first recipients of the money. That’s also one of the reasons why many countries have much higher state pensions.

As a means of injecting capital across the whole of the country, which increases spending, creates and supports jobs, improves health standards, etc etc, it’s very cost effective.
Alistair Potter
Via email