Latest news with #AllanSutherland
The Herald Scotland
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
What have they done? We'll all rue the cost of Labour rebels' actions
Perhaps these two ministers should just have resigned, explained why, precipitated the increasingly inevitable Greece 2009-type collapse facing this country and triggered the brutal policies that entails. 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.
The Herald Scotland
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Why is Labour holding back? Is it willing the SNP to fail?
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.
