Professor Allyson Pollock (April 18) is right to accuse Health Minister Andy Kerr of slander when he refers to "biased academics who seek to mislead the public with outdated and discredited arguments". His statement would have been more appropriate if the words "Labour politicians" were substituted for "biased academics".

I refer in particular to the claim made by Tony Blair and Wendy Alexander, and repeated in Labour's latest election broadcasts and leaflets, that "the SNP's tax bill will cost every household in Scotland £5000 more each year". There are so many lies and distortions in that claim that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First, it is clearly based on the heavily-qualified fiscal deficit figure produced in the latest Gers report for 2004/05. To this Labour has added its own estimates of further costs that might be incurred by an independent Scotland, without giving any details of how these guesses were arrived at. Secondly, Labour's total fails to offset the £9.1bn of UK-wide costs at present charged against Scotland in the Gers computation, one of which would be payable under independence.

Thirdly, the oil revenues credited are substantially understated, according to the latest Treasury official figures. Fourthly, it implies that any deficit must be instantly cleared by extra taxation, ignoring the fact that most trading nations, including the UK, operate annual deficits financed by long-term borrowing. Fifthly, and most scurrilously, the £5000 fantasy tax bill that Labour says will be payable by "every family" takes no account of the abolition of council tax, which would benefit every family.

And finally, whatever the extra tax charge may be, if there is one, is Labour suggesting that every family would pay exactly the same? That would be even more iniquitous than the council tax, which at least takes into account the size of your house if not your personal circumstances and ability to pay.

So come off it, Labour. Nobody is fooled by such blatant scaremongering, no matter how often you repeat it.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Professor Pollock is fortunate to get any kind of response from a Labour minister. When I put an awkward question to Steven Purcell, the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council, I do not get any answer at all.

On February 28 I wrote to ask him how he reconciled his scheme to transfer Glasgow's cultural and leisure services to a charitable trust with his party's policy (adopted at its 2006 Oban conference) of opposing the use of charities to out-source council services.

I am still waiting for his reply.

On April 11 I wrote to ask him why he had told me at the council meeting the previous week that he had not received an invitation from Unison to take part in a public debate about the culture and leisure trust, when Unison had sent him an invitation to do so on March 14. I have not had an answer to that question, either.

So far I have not seen the transfer of culture and leisure services to the Culture and Sport Glasgow trust featured in any Labour Party election material in Glasgow. So here are two more questions for Councillor Purcell. If his party manages to win an overall majority in the next city council, is he going to claim that he has won an electoral mandate for the transfer? If so, how can you claim to have won a mandate for a policy that you refused to mention, let alone debate, throughout the election?

Christopher Mason, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Glasgow City Council.