You think Nicola Sturgeon was divisive? Well, think again
It's perhaps worth pointing out that Nicola Sturgeon became SNP leader after the failed 2014 referendum when nationalism was being declared "dead in the water" by many of the same journalists now giving her the "divisive" label. Yet within a year she had secured an unprecedented 56 out of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster. On top of that party membership rose to a reputed 125,000 under her stewardship. That to me is somebody not just winning over people from the disaffected inside her own party, but also persuading voters from other parties to switch allegiance. So how can that be indicative of a "divisive" personality?
The Holyrood Gender Recognition Reform Bill is invariably cited as the prime example of this alleged divisive style. But there was division within nearly all the parties. Some Tories defied their leadership to vote in favour whilst some Labour members followed suit to vote against. That polarisation was there simply because of the nature of the subject matter rather than a style of government. Despite that Ms Sturgeon persuaded supporters from all parties to unite behind the bill and get it passed. That's why I'm baffled. Is this some sort of Orwellian reprise where unity becomes the hallmark of division?
Robert Menzies, Falkirk.
Read more letters
The timing is all wrong
Nicola Sturgeon and her publishers might have received a more forgiving reception for her new book if they had allowed more time to pass before delivering her take on events. Instead, feelings are still rather raw on a number of issues and our former First Minister's perspective risks merely confirming that on some critical issues she had little time for the viewpoint of those who did not choose to march in step with her.
Of course, there must be a great temptation for those whose have worked in public life, with all the scrutiny that can entail, to take the opportunity to put their own spin on the big events of their time in the spotlight. Yet it is becoming clear that for Nicola Sturgeon the whole process is fraught with risks, not least because of the timing of her revelations.
The self-identity controversies are still very much with us for example, and someone trying to placate the sensitivities of those on all sides just now is likely to succeed only in further upsetting everyone.
Equally, with Alex Salmond's death being less than a year ago, some will feel it a little too soon to be detailing criticisms and negative recollections about someone who would most certainly have vigorously contested each and every complaint. As for all the divisions and stirring of grievance against the rest of the UK in the context of the independence debate, to say the least it is a little grating to hear that Ms Sturgeon might now choose to live where she wanted us all to turn our backs on, particularly for those of us with friends and family there.
No doubt the publishers were keen to get this book into print as soon as possible, but it would have perhaps been fairer on the public purse if the former First Minister had resigned as an MSP too at the point she stepped down from the top job, to avoid any appearance that she was taking public money for a full-time role whilst putting most of her time and energy into a personal project.
From all that has been reported so far about Frankly, there will at least be plenty of scope for prospective future biographers to get their teeth into given all the selective omissions across the more inglorious elements of Nicola Sturgeon's time in power. Of course her own take has always been that others were to blame, but with that stance she undoubtedly is firmly in the field of fiction, which as luck would have it, is apparently where her writing will next take her.
Keith Howell, West Linton.
What about education?
Given the wall-to-wall coverage and plethora of interviews Nicola Sturgeon has given on the launch of her book it is surprising that no one has asked why she isn't being "judged on education" as she wished when she set out.
I think we can all agree that in that primary regard she failed badly by any number of measures. It is very sad that all the focus has been on gender issues, Alex Salmond, Operation Branchform, personal matters and the like and not on her policy failures on education, the NHS, infrastructure, policing, economy and the things that truly matter to the people of Scotland.
Ian McNair, Cellardyke.
London calling? Really?
Possibly the greatest irony coming from Nicola Sturgeon's memoirs is her declaration that 'she loves London' and may even go and live there. If she does, she will avoid the highest tax rates in the UK but of course, more importantly, is free to move to London at any time as a result of the UK Union – the same Union that she has fought tooth and nail to destroy. You couldn't make it up.
Richard Allison, Edinburgh.
Is there no escape?
Yesterday, a friend in England emailed me to say that she had bought tickets for Nicola Sturgeon's book night in the local branch of Toppings. "Am I mad?" asked my friend. My answer was short and sharp.
Reaching page 16 of today's Herald (August 12), I have seen four photographs of Ms Surgeon, not to mention her being the subject of your page one headline and the first four contributions to your Letters Pages.
I expect that conversation at my golf club will centre on the same.
Is there no escape from this all-engulfing madness?
David Miller, Milngavie.
Was it too soon for Nicola Sturgeon to be criticising Alex Salmond? (Image: PA)
In defence of our freedoms
You report that Westminster's Victims Minister Alex Davies-Jones said: 'I thank the police for their bravery and their courage in carrying out their diligent duties in the line of public protection' ('Palestine Action supporters 'will feel full force of law', justice minister vows', The Herald, August 12). The police officers on the front line appear to have handled professionally the difficult situation they've been landed with, but how much bravery and courage are involved in leading away women in their seventies or a blind man in a wheelchair? And how much protection do we need from people, average age over 50, sitting peacefully in a public area holding pieces of cardboard?
Andy Stenton (Letters, August 12) points out 'this was a peaceful protest against ethnic cleansing and genocide by Israel in Gaza', but it was more than that: it was a protest in support of freedom of speech and freedom to protest about government action or inaction. These are vital freedoms in a properly democratic society.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Don't let Putin profit
With President Trump in Putin's hip pocket it seems doubtful whether a just outcome of the conflict in Ukraine will ever be achieved.
It seems to have escape The Donald that the aggressor should never be allowed to profit from his actions.
Russia should be made to return to the natural boundaries and be required to finance the reconstruction that will have to follow after any so-called peace deal.
Peter D Christie, Newton Mearns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Press and Journal
32 minutes ago
- Press and Journal
Nicola Sturgeon admits in new book she got it wrong on oil and gas - as Aberdeen paid the price
Nicola Sturgeon has admitted the SNP over-inflated promises about oil and gas in the independence campaign, just before a collapse hit Aberdeen and the north-east hard. The former first minister looks back at policies and pledges central to the regional economy in an extract from her new memoirs, called Frankly. The much anticipated book relives the events running up to the crucial vote on Scotland's future in September 2014. In it, she reflects: The publication of the book comes just as government figures were forced again to respond to falling North Sea revenue and a widening financial deficit. In her book, Ms Sturgeon looks back more than 10 years when prices were riding high. 'The numbers we had used in the referendum White Paper to illustrate an independent Scotland's fiscal position had been heavily dependent on oil revenues,' she writes. 'And, of course, we had based these on the optimistic estimates that Alex had insisted on. 'I didn't know then that a total collapse in the oil price was just around the corner. 'In early 2015, this caused significant political and practical problems. The practical came from the impact on the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east, which is heavily reliant on the oil and gas supply chain. 'As the major companies started to shed jobs and curtail activity, the effects were quickly felt across the region.' As first minister, Ms Sturgeon set up a taskforce but powers were limited and political opponents sensed opportunity. 'To have the price of a barrel of crude fall to around 40 US dollars when we had relied on a figure of well over 100 US dollars in the referendum blew a massive hole in the credibility of our argument,' she added. 'I resolved then that in any future referendum, we must not allow the strength of the independence prospectus to stand or fall on the volatile value of oil, especially as it is a finite commodity. 'We needed to show how Scotland's economy would be sustainable in the long term without it.' On Wednesday morning, the volatility of North Sea revenue and government policies were again under scrutiny with the publication of annual revenue and spending. It coincides with another push for independence under First Minister John Swinney. The difference between revenue and public sector spending, including capital investment, was a deficit of 11.7% of gross domestic product in Scotland. When excluding the North Sea, there was a deficit of 14.4% of GDP – equal to £30.6 billion. The Scottish Government has faced criticism for delays to an energy strategy and lack of vocal support for oil and gas. Much of the crucial policy power rests at Westminster where the Labour government is under pressure to address a windfall tax on profits. Russell Borthwick, chief executive at Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, said: 'If the UK Government continues to tax the industry at 78%, then we face an accelerated industrial decline, we will lose our world class supply chain to other parts of the word, and our oil and gas imports will continue to soar, syphoning tens of billions of pounds out of the UK economy. 'However, there is another future, one where we commit to sourcing the oil and gas we require as a nation from the North Sea, supporting jobs, public services and – crucially – creating the bridge required to a just transition while we build out renewable energy projects.' Responding to the new figures, Scottish Government Finance Secretary Shona Robison said: 'Falling oil prices and a decrease in extraction present challenges going forward, but we are clear in our support for a just transition for Scotland's valued oil and gas sector, which recognises the maturity of the North Sea basin and is in line with our climate change commitments and energy security.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves risk repeating a mistake if she changes inheritance tax
Whenever a government is desperate to raise funds, there is a good chance it will revisit mad and bad ideas before trying something that is proven to work. As Rachel Reeves stares at the prospect of a black hole in the public finances — ranging from £20 billion to £70 billion, according to various estimates — it is clear that the chancellor cannot dig down the back of the sofa to plug the gap at the next budget. If these estimates are to be believed, dramatic spending cuts or big tax rises will be required to keep within her fiscal rules. Some Labour figures have duly called for a wealth tax, to squeeze the pips out of the country's richest who are already fleeing in rising numbers. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, is said to have privately urged Ms Reeves to clamp down on the rich; Lord Kinnock, the former party leader, has done so publicly. Thankfully this unwise idea has been dismissed as 'daft' by Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, which hopefully means it has been discarded. Yet another such bad idea has floated into the public domain: reworking inheritance tax. Reports suggest that Treasury officials have been tasked with examining how assets are being given away before death to reduce liabilities. Under current rules, gifts made seven years or more before someone's death are not captured by inheritance tax. Any gifts handed over after that are taxed at varying rates. The Treasury is said to be examining whether a lifetime cap should be introduced and whether the so-called 'taper rates' on gifts given up to seven years beforehand need to be reworked. It is unclear whether these ideas have yet to reach the chancellor's desk. • Angela Rayner gives Labour a 12-month mission to save itself Were Ms Reeves to pursue changes to inheritance tax, it would represent the apotheosis of the Starmer government's all-pain, no-gain approach to governing. First, changing the rules on inheritance tax would not raise the projected £40 billion required to plug the gap in the public finances. Families would simply find workarounds to avoid strenuous new levies, just as they have done under the present regime. There is a risk that the government would go to great effort to craft new inheritance tax rules, only to find that it fails to deliver what was hoped for and it is back to square one. Second, it is political suicide. There are few issues more likely to incite fury among the electorate than a stricter inheritance tax regime. Swathes of middle England who have carefully accrued capital will punish any party that seeks to take it away. Gordon Brown realised this when mulling over calling an election in 2007, taking fright from the Conservative's plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. And finally, it is morally wrong. Inheritance tax is a levy on those who have worked hard throughout their lives to earn something to pass onto the next generation. The chancellor must draw a line under this speculation, which will prove damaging to her personally the longer it continues. There are better options available, such as tackling the ballooning welfare bill, with spending on disability benefits set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. There is also the dire state of productivity in the public sector, which is costing the economy £80 billion a year, as this newspaper reported yesterday. After £40 billion of tax rises in her first budget suffocated economic growth, Ms Reeves would be wise to learn and not repeat the same error.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
UK benefits bill will hit £100bn with one million more on Universal Credit under Labour – I know how to fix it
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves is walking Britain into an alligator pit of maxed-out borrowing, higher taxes and stuttering growth. But there is something else now snapping at her high-tax heels — the soaring number of people on out-of-work benefits. 2 2 New figures this week showed that, since Labour took office, there are now over one million MORE people on Universal Credit — that's the size of the population of Birmingham. By 2030, the cost of sickness benefits alone will reach £100billion — more than the entire defence budget. Thousands of people are being written off, their potential wasted. And with hardworking families set to be clobbered by further tax hikes this autumn, Sun readers will rightly ask, 'What is going on?'. As the Work and Pensions Secretary responsible for getting Britain to record employment levels in the 2010s, I know that unless they get welfare under control, taxpayers face a tax bomb overwhelming them this autumn. 'Work instilled pride' To recap, before Covid, my reforms put a hard cap on unemployment benefits and combined them so that jobseekers were always better off in work. We brought in tough new rules and a contract for claimants to sign in return for their benefits, ensuring they looked for a job and took one, with a work coach's help. With this approach, we got 1,600 people into jobs every single day. Workless households fell to their lowest level ever. And half a million more children grew up seeing a parent going out to earn a living — changing their life chances forever. I took the view that work was more than just a paycheck but, importantly, it instilled purpose and pride in your life. Sadly, in 2020, Covid lockdowns saw benefit assessments massively relaxed and sanctions suspended. Meetings were shunted online and never held in person again — a terrible error. Meanwhile, perverse incentives crept into the system, allowing more and more people on to (significantly more generous) sickness benefits. Since then, long-term sickness claims have exploded, rising to almost 3,000 per day. The number of people receiving Personal Independent Payments for anxiety and depression has trebled. Meanwhile, the number of households where no one has ever worked has also risen. Analysis by the think tank I set up, The Centre For Social Justice, found that once all benefits are totted up, you can now receive £2,500 a year more on benefits than someone would receive on the national living wage after tax. In other cases, such as a single parent claiming for anxiety and a child with ADHD, total annual support can reach nearly £37,000 — over £14,000 more than the same person would earn through wages alone. A system designed to protect disabled people in genuine need has morphed into one that too often disincentivises work, traps people in long-term dependency and leaves them without meaningful support to recover. This isn't the whole story. There are, at the extremes, young and old at both edges of the welfare crisis. With almost one million youngsters not in education, employment or training (NEET), the epidemic of school absences could yet see an extra 180,000 pupils join their ranks. And we are leaking talent and experience out of the workforce at an alarming rate, with record numbers of people aged 50-64 on out-of-work benefits. The government must start by addressing the surge in claims since the pandemic, particularly for mental health. But the government has got off to a bad start. The Treasury's push to get quick savings in time for the spring resulted in a rebellion by Labour backbenchers and a U-turn costing £3billion. Yet this ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled, and the CSJ has shown there is a way. First, tighten eligibility for benefits to people with more severe mental health conditions while reinvesting the savings in the support we know genuinely helps people to recover. In-person assessments and benefit sanctions for those failing to seek work must be restored in full. The CSJ shows that this would save over £7billion, a large portion of which should be spent radically expanding NHS therapy and back-to-work help. Second, we need to stop people falling out of work in the first place. 'Young hardest hit' Medicalising the ups and downs of life has resulted in 93 per cent of consultations with a GP ending up with someone signed off altogether rather than keeping them in their job. A proper work and health system should take 'sick notes' provision off GPs, allowing them to devote their time to people, particularly those aged 50–64, needing workplace adjustments. Third, I worry more each day about Britain's young people. The government's National Insurance rises have put up wage costs, making businesses less likely to give them a chance. Young people are the hardest hit by the £25billion jobs tax. Instead, the Chancellor should cut taxes on jobs and introduce a new tax credit for businesses hiring young British NEETS, a CSJ proposal backed by many employers who have called for this. Our post-Covid ballooning welfare bill has to be tackled urgently. But as employment numbers fall in response to higher taxes, Reeves has made it harder to do this. Getting people back to work is critical for us all.
