What have they done? We'll all rue the cost of Labour rebels' actions
The world has moved on from the draconian undertones of the 1834 Poor Law's "deserving and undeserving poor", but surely few could disagree with the argument put forward by former Labour MP Tom Harris this week that the objectives of reform should be aimed "squarely at those who have given up trying to get a job and have decided they would prefer to rely on benefits long-term".
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.
A Phyrric victory
Keir Starmer's concessions on his welfare bill resulted in little more than a Pyrrhic victory which has left him wounded and extremely vulnerable. Who will ever believe him again when he tries to portray himself as the man who will take difficult decisions when he fails to stand by them?
From the outset of his premiership, he has tied himself to the apron strings of his Chancellor who is to him the one to make Britain's economy grow again, a faith he has but very few others now share. His future is inextricably bound up with hers. So, if she fails, he fails.
If she offers her resignation as a result of the effects of the pressure put upon her by the adverse criticisms of her role as Chancellor, it would be natural to assume that he would also jump ship not long after.
Read more letters
It is rumoured that there is the sound of sharpening knives being heard in the Labour ranks to find replacements for both of them.
Should such a double whammy occur, the only course of action open to the Government would be to call an immediate election, which would send a shiver down the spines of what were formerly considered our two main parties.
It is so hard for any politician to relinquish power that it would be unsurprising to see him soldier on while at the same time making it virtually unlikely that Labour would be a viable political force again.
In this Government came with mighty promises of creating a dynamic economy where investment and growth would lift us out of the despond of a flatlining economy and create a country where prosperity and sound public services would march hand in hand.
The febrility of our electorate with the 24/7 insensitivity of non-stop social media has left us with a country unwilling to make sacrifices to secure a stable future where everyone benefits.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
Scotland ahead in poverty fight
Recent analysis shows that levels of relative poverty in Scotland have been lower than in the UK as a whole for the last two decades. This is surely a vindication of the policies pursued and adopted by successive Scottish governments over that time and strongly suggests that Holyrood administrations have been far more effective in looking after the needs of the people they represent than those in Westminster and the Senedd.
To give some examples, in 2024 the level of relative poverty in the UK was 21% while Scotland stood at 20% (England and Wales were slightly above the UK figure). In terms of child poverty Scotland's percentage fell from 25% in 2021 to 23% last year. In both England and Wales rates in 2024 were 31%, exactly the same as in 2021. (Steve Witherden, Labour MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr has indicated he would be in favour of the Welsh Government introducing something similar to the Scottish Child Payment.) The relative poverty rate for people of pension age in Scotland was 15% in 2024 compared with 16% for the UK as a whole.
If the Scottish Government can outperform the UK and Welsh administrations in such a key measure of quality of life with one hand tied behind its back, as at present, we can only imagine how far ahead an independent Scotland would be. Our country simply cannot afford to be held back any longer.
Alan Woodcock, Dundee.
Indy in EU is a viable option
Ewen Peters (Letters, July 2) argues that Scotland is doing less well than recent figures on foreign direct investment suggest. He seemed concerned that Scots might be encouraged towards independence. Mr Peters wrote: "In the Trumpian era of unpredictable tariffs, the experience of our Irish neighbours flags the dangers and risks of placing your most important economic eggs in the inward investment basket."
Yet however fierce international trade wars become, Ireland can rest secure in the knowledge that as a member of the EU it has tariff-free access to the 27 member countries. Scotland does not have that and the Brexit damage over time gets worse and not better. Scots might well conclude that independence back in the EU is indeed a viable option and perhaps one that offers greater prosperity than remaining in the UK.
Jackie Kemp, Edinburgh.
Nothing special
Malcolm Parkin (Letters, July 3) tells us that 'one goodish aspect of Britain is that one can spout nonsense on one day and still be at the same address the next day'.
The same can be said of any country in Europe and of most countries in the world including the many independent states.
There is nothing special about Britain in this regard.
David Clark, Tarbolton.
Stop the grandstanding
I read your front page headline ("Minister's pledge in new bid to beat homes shortage", The Herald, July 3) with a sense of déjà vu. The "pledge" not to roll back on a target of 110,000 affordable homes by 2032 put me in mind of similar "pledges" to complete the dualling of the A9 where the Government continued to maintain that the time schedule was still achievable long past the time when it was glaringly obvious that it could not be done.
The Housing Secretary talks of the need to have a "challenging" target. I feel that a large part of the current lack of confidence in/disillusion with governments and politicians stems from too many headline-grabbing so-called challenging pledges issued with no detailed plan or schedule or realistic funding provision to ensure delivery of the pledge. Past experience also tells us that without measurable milestones to monitor ongoing progress, the author of the pledge is generally safely ensconced in another government role before the chickens of failed achievement come home to roost.
The Government would have far more credibility if it delivered against realistic targets rather than grandstanding with targets and programmes grabbed out of thin air.
John Reid, Dunblane.
• Màiri McAllan, when questioned as to the credibility of the target "to deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032" states: "I think it is. I think that it will require us to step up." Indeed. It seems that someone failed to inform Ms McAllan that delivering upon promises is an essential part of the job. Merely stating a target doesn't cut the mustard. Yes, Ms McAllan, you will to need to step up.
Maureen McGarry-O'Hanlon, Jamestown.
Housing Secretary Màiri McAllan (Image: PA)
Swinney is no leader
I read the article by John Swinney (''There is nothing wrong in Scotland that cannot be fixed'', The Herald, July 1) with growing despair. He asserts that most people are realistic about the challenges facing Scotland, conveniently omitting that the "challenges" are mainly as a result of his and his Government's inept handling and lack of honesty in accepting this. The article demonstrates clearly that he lacks leadership, and that he and the Government do not have any idea what the key priorities are for the Scottish people.
I have never read a more wishy-washy article containing nothing of substance but "motherhood and apple pie". One saving grace was that he did not invoke the old chestnut that the answer to all our challenges is independence,
God help the people of Scotland with this man as leader.
Douglas Eadie, Bonhill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Parents need to check for lost bank account with £2,200 unclaimed cash, says HMRC
HUNDREDS of thousands of young people could be missing out on £2,200 sitting in forgotten savings accounts, according to HMRC. These accounts, known as Child Trust Funds, were set up for every child born between September 2002 and January 2011. 1 A staggering £1.4billion belonging to 671,000 young people is waiting to be claimed, but many don't know these accounts exist or that they can access the money. HMRC said the average savings pot is worth £2,212. It is now urging parents to check if their children are eligible. In a post on X, they said: "If your child is between 18 and 22, they can cash in their #ChildTrustFund. The average amount claimed is £2,200." Parents can check for Child Trust Funds on the HMRC website at You need to be over 16 or a parent to use the service. To check for your child, you'll need their full name, address, and date of birth. To check for yourself, you'll need your name, address, date of birth, and National Insurance number. The tool will tell you which provider holds the Child Trust Fund, but it won't show how much money is in the account. Once you've filled in the form, HMRC will send you a letter with the details. If you apply online, you should get this within three weeks. Postal applications may take a bit longer. If you don't hear back within six weeks, you should write to HMRC to follow up. Once you know who the provider is, you can contact them to withdraw or transfer the money. What are Child Trust Funds? CHILD Trust Funds are tax-free savings accounts that were set up by the Government for children born between September 2002 and January 2011. The Government paid £250 into each account, or £500 for children from low-income families. Another payment was made when the child turned seven, depending on their family's financial situation. In 2010, payments were reduced to £50 for well-off families and £100 for lower-income households. The scheme was scrapped in 2011 and replaced by Junior ISAs. Many parents stopped adding money to the accounts, and they were forgotten. The funds are held by banks, building societies, and other savings providers - not by the Government. Young people can take control of their account at 16 but can only withdraw the money when they turn 18. What can I do with the cash? Most people transfer the money into a bank account, invest it, or move it into an ISA. You can ask your Child Trust Fund provider to pay the money directly into your bank account by providing your bank details. If you'd prefer to invest the money, you can transfer it into an ISA for tax-free savings. If you transfer money from a Child Trust Fund into an adult ISA when it matures, it won't count towards your £20,000 annual ISA limit for over-18s. For those under 18, it's often better to move the money into a Junior ISA. Junior ISAs usually have lower fees and more investment options, according to AJ Bell. The money will stay locked until you turn 18, but you'll still get the tax-free benefits of an ISA. You can transfer the full amount from the Child Trust Fund into a Junior ISA and still add up to £9,000 more in the same tax year. How can I find the best savings rates? WITH your current savings rates in mind, don't waste time looking at individual banking sites to compare rates - it'll take you an eternity. Research price comparison websites such as Compare the Market, and MoneySupermarket. These will help you save you time and show you the best rates available. They also let you tailor your searches to an account type that suits you. As a benchmark, you'll want to consider any account that currently pays more interest than the current level of inflation - 3.4%. It's always wise to have some money stashed inside an easy-access savings account to ensure you have quick access to cash to deal with any emergencies like a boiler repair, for example. If you're saving for a long-term goal, then consider locking some of your savings inside a fixed bond, as these usually come with the highest savings rates.
Scottish Sun
27 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Parents need to check for lost bank account with £2,200 unclaimed cash, says HMRC
Plus, we've explained what to do with the money CASH IN Parents need to check for lost bank account with £2,200 unclaimed cash, says HMRC Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) HUNDREDS of thousands of young people could be missing out on £2,200 sitting in forgotten savings accounts, according to HMRC. These accounts, known as Child Trust Funds, were set up for every child born between September 2002 and January 2011. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 1 Once you know who the provider is, you can contact them to withdraw or transfer the money Credit: Getty A staggering £1.4billion belonging to 671,000 young people is waiting to be claimed, but many don't know these accounts exist or that they can access the money. HMRC said the average savings pot is worth £2,212. It is now urging parents to check if their children are eligible. In a post on X, they said: "If your child is between 18 and 22, they can cash in their #ChildTrustFund. The average amount claimed is £2,200." Parents can check for Child Trust Funds on the HMRC website at You need to be over 16 or a parent to use the service. To check for your child, you'll need their full name, address, and date of birth. To check for yourself, you'll need your name, address, date of birth, and National Insurance number. The tool will tell you which provider holds the Child Trust Fund, but it won't show how much money is in the account. Once you've filled in the form, HMRC will send you a letter with the details. If you apply online, you should get this within three weeks. Postal applications may take a bit longer. If you don't hear back within six weeks, you should write to HMRC to follow up. Once you know who the provider is, you can contact them to withdraw or transfer the money. What are Child Trust Funds? CHILD Trust Funds are tax-free savings accounts that were set up by the Government for children born between September 2002 and January 2011. The Government paid £250 into each account, or £500 for children from low-income families. Another payment was made when the child turned seven, depending on their family's financial situation. In 2010, payments were reduced to £50 for well-off families and £100 for lower-income households. The scheme was scrapped in 2011 and replaced by Junior ISAs. Many parents stopped adding money to the accounts, and they were forgotten. The funds are held by banks, building societies, and other savings providers - not by the Government. Young people can take control of their account at 16 but can only withdraw the money when they turn 18. What can I do with the cash? Most people transfer the money into a bank account, invest it, or move it into an ISA. You can ask your Child Trust Fund provider to pay the money directly into your bank account by providing your bank details. If you'd prefer to invest the money, you can transfer it into an ISA for tax-free savings. If you transfer money from a Child Trust Fund into an adult ISA when it matures, it won't count towards your £20,000 annual ISA limit for over-18s. For those under 18, it's often better to move the money into a Junior ISA. Junior ISAs usually have lower fees and more investment options, according to AJ Bell. The money will stay locked until you turn 18, but you'll still get the tax-free benefits of an ISA. You can transfer the full amount from the Child Trust Fund into a Junior ISA and still add up to £9,000 more in the same tax year.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
It is time to release prisoners trapped by inhuman endless jail terms
The Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, introduced in 2005 under the Labour government, was intended to protect the public from serious offenders deemed too dangerous for a fixed-term release. But nearly two decades on, this law stands as one of the most egregious stains on Britain's criminal justice system. Abolished in 2012 for its inherent flaws, it nonetheless continues to trap thousands of people in a cruel legal limbo, as a debate in the House of Lords today will no doubt highlight. It is long past time that every person still serving an IPP sentence be resentenced. The continued use of this now-defunct punishment is both unjust and, arguably, inhumane. At its core, the IPP sentence allowed judges to hand out indeterminate prison terms for offences that did not justify life imprisonment but were deemed serious enough to warrant extended supervision. Offenders were given a 'tariff' – the minimum time they must serve before being considered for release. Many of these tariffs were shockingly short, some as low as two years. Yet thousands remain in prison long after these tariffs have expired. Why? Because release is dependent not on time served, but on proving to the Parole Board that they are no longer a danger to the public – a nebulous, subjective, and often unreachable standard. This flips the basic presumption of justice on its head. In a fair system, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt to imprison a person. Under IPP, once the tariff is served, the burden of proof shifts unfairly to the prisoner. It is no longer the state's job to justify incarceration; it is the prisoner's burden to earn freedom. This is particularly problematic when access to rehabilitative programmes, often required for parole, is limited or unavailable – especially in overcrowded prisons. The system sets people up to fail and then blames them for not succeeding. Moreover, the psychological toll of such indefinite punishment is catastrophic. Suicide and self-harm rates among IPP prisoners are significantly higher than average. Many live in a state of constant uncertainty and despair, unsure if they will ever be released, even decades after their offence. It is not unusual to find individuals still imprisoned for minor crimes – such as theft or assault – that would today warrant only a few years behind bars, yet they languish without a release date. The punishment no longer fits the crime, if it ever did. The injustice of the IPP system has been widely recognised. The House of Commons justice committee labelled it "irredeemably flawed" and called for all remaining IPP prisoners to be resentenced. The European Court of Human Rights has also condemned aspects of the sentence as incompatible with human rights obligations. Yet the government has so far refused to act decisively, citing public safety and political sensitivity. This is a failure of courage and leadership. Protecting public safety does not require trampling basic rights or holding people indefinitely for crimes long past. Dangerous individuals can be managed through proper risk assessment and robust parole conditions – not through perpetual punishment without end. Resentencing every IPP prisoner is not only fair, it is necessary. It would give judges the opportunity to reconsider the nature and severity of each offence and impose a proportionate, fixed sentence with clear guidance for release. For many, this would mean immediate or imminent freedom; for others, it would offer clarity, rehabilitation goals, and hope – something the current system wholly lacks. Justice demands consistency, proportionality, and transparency. The IPP sentence undermines all three. Some argue that resentencing might release dangerous individuals back into society. But the risk can be responsibly managed without recourse to indeterminate detention. Modern sentencing tools, community supervision, mental health support, and parole frameworks are all capable of mitigating risk. Perpetual incarceration without due process is not a solution – it is a violation. Britain prides itself on the rule of law, but this chapter of penal policy betrays that principle. IPP sentences should not only be consigned to history – they must be actively undone. Every person still caught in this Kafkaesque trap deserves a proper sentence, a path to rehabilitation, and a chance at freedom. Anything less is a continuation of a deep and unforgivable wrong.
