Why is Labour holding back? Is it willing the SNP to fail?

The Herald Scotland

17-06-2025

It's almost as if they want the SNP to fail, rather than reap the benefits of showing them and the electorate how it's done.
That's if they are actually up to the task.
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.
The problem with Sturgeon
So, when Holywood actor Rupert Everett criticises Nicola Sturgeon's handling of the arts as parochial and damaging, labelling her a "witch", Ms Sturgeon's intellectually lazy response is to claim he's misogynistic ("Sturgeon accuses Everett of misogyny", The Herald, June 16).
Surely she must be posturing and realises that next to no-one cares that she's a woman? My problem with Ms Sturgeon has nothing to do with her sex and everything to do with her protracted mismanagement of Scotland's public services (think growing NHS waiting times, an increasing educational attainment gap, escalating drug deaths, the ferry procurement fiasco, an undualled A9, all accompanied by soaring taxation) and her divisive obsession with nationalist dogma.
Martin Redfern, Melrose.
Read more letters
England £40bn, Scotland £200m
On June 11 the BBC News website reported that to date the UK Government has pledged £17.8 billion towards the construction of the new Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk. The project is being funded by UK Treasury borrowing. As a consequential of this borrowing a total of £1.513bn will be included within future Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures as this country's "share" of the total amount being borrowed. This is despite the fact that no nuclear power stations are being built in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland already produces a surplus of electricity and people living in the north-east will soon be treated to the sight of massive pylons being constructed throughout their area to carry this surplus power to our southern neighbours.
On June 12 the UK Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, stated that a total of £200 million would be allocated to fund the proposed Acorn carbon capture project at St Fergus. While this very long-overdue announcement of funding from Mr Miliband is to be welcomed, it pales into absolute insignificance when compared to the £21.7bn over 25 years to support carbon capture projects in the north-east and north-west of England. As these projects are being funded through UK Treasury borrowing, Scotland will also be given an allocated "share" of the consequential debt for them when its future GERS figures are published.
The combined funding bill for these projects in England totals (so far) £39.5bn. Scottish taxpayers – present and future – will be required to pay their share of the money borrowed to build them. It has to be asked if people living in Scotland consider that £200m for the Acorn Project at St Fergus has been a fair deal when placed against the many billions already set aside for carbon capture in north-east and north-west England?
During last week's BBC Scotland Debate Night programme the subject of the UK Government's Spending Review was discussed. Scottish actor Brian Cox said: "For Starmer, everything is about England." Given the situation related to the Acorn Project it is difficult not to concur with that particular opinion.
Jim Finlayson, Banchory.
• Scotland has its ferries, but every now and then we are reminded that we Scots are total amateurs when it comes to scandalous wastes of public money. That a door would cost £10 million is astonishing, but for it to then not work is beyond comprehension ("New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work", heraldscotland, June 16). However it's for the Ruritanian House of Lords, so that's OK then.
The entire Palace of Westminster is scheduled for a complete refurbishment which may cost an eye-watering £26bn (or probably more). Repeat, Twenty-six billion pounds. I hope Scotland has the good sense to become a self-governing country long before the bills for that nonsense drop through the letterbox. Does the £10m door have a letterbox? Probably not, as a flunky in stockings, garters and a wig will be available to bring the mail to 'our betters'.
GR Weir, Ochiltree.
We should follow China
Mike Flinn (Letters, June 11) criticises John Swinney for not having 'a basic grasp of maths', so I hope he wasn't listening to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on June 12, the day after the Chancellor's Spending Review. If he was, he'll have heard Rachel Reeves say that the UK's interest payment on its national debt is £100 million per year. An easy slip to make, as the true figure is an astonishing £105 billion. And given the extra borrowing unveiled, the BBC estimates that, by the end of the decade, the annual payment will have risen to £132bn; that's almost £2,000 for every woman, man and child.
To put that in perspective, the Office of Budget Responsibility says that in 2024-25 spending on education was £89bn and on defence £38bn. Imagine how you could transform education and other areas of government spending if the Exchequer wasn't staggering under the burden of that debt mountain, but it can't be wished away.
I understand the problem facing Ms Reeves and indeed all of us, and I'm pleased she emphasises the importance of investment to grow the economy. Only through growth can we raise the taxes to fund our public services and, hopefully but slowly, reduce our debt. However, it appears the bulk of the promised extra spending is going to health and defence, areas that are net consumers of resources rather than generators of wealth.
Things aren't as bad as they were immediately after the Second World War, when the UK's public sector debt reached an astonishing 250% of GDP. The years after were tough, with debt repayments and the loss of the empire that had sent its riches back to the UK; but governments, both Labour and Conservative, managed to reduce debt to a manageable 50%, mainly through growth. However, since the global financial crisis of 2008, debt has skyrocketed and looks set to continue on a sharply upward trajectory. If the limited extra investment announced by the Chancellor doesn't produce great returns, we'll remain trapped in an upward spiral of debt.
We all want better public services but we have to accept that they can't be turned round overnight. It's vital that government invests for the long term and restrains public spending in the interim. China is a supreme example of how long-term planning can transform an economy, but of course its leadership doesn't have to worry about elections.
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Nicola Sturgeon (Image: PA) Watch party promises closely
We know things are bad when even the Labour Party is struggling to balance essential cuts to expenditure against popularity with voters. It's one of the features of democracy that when times are tough, the policies needed to address them will be unpopular with most of the electorate. We are a fickle lot and tend to vote for whichever party panders most to our self-interest – resulting in manifestos that tell us what they think most people want to hear. Once elected they then try and adapt those policies to the reality of the economic situation. U-turns aplenty.
This does not however apply to the SNP, which relies on support from those who believe that the magic wand of independence is the solution to all our problems. The SNP can make attractive promises ignoring the fact that going down the independence path would only add to the complexity of our situation. Once elected in Holyrood the SNP then uses Westminster as a ready-made excuse for everything that it fails to deliver, citing lack of funds or "levers" as a cover for incompetence.
In next year's Scottish election, the parties will be promising all sorts. Before deciding who to vote for, we should each judge how the prospect of them actually delivering their manifestos stacks up against the economic reality that deep down we know to be the case.
One thing should be clear is that we should discount the party that relies on a magic wand it does not possess and has a ready-made excuse for failure.
Mark Openshaw, Aberdeen.