
Whatever happened to our sense of moderation?
The Government tried to cut benefits to save money wasted by its predecessors but went to the extreme length of immediately not fully supporting families with more than two children. A more moderate approach would have been to limit it by cutting benefits to the third or more children born after 12 months of the passing of the relevant legislation – in other words, after a pregnant pause.
Young couples, sometimes married, buy houses with three bedrooms and two toilets before they need them. Builders and mortgage suppliers oblige them, so the result is too little economic housing. Older folk cannot downsize for the same reason. Good building land is wasted under the present conditions.
The business world has the same failings, closing various units to centralise – often with government grants – and so putting large numbers of loyal staff out of work. At sea, bigger vessels have docking problems, run into important bridges and block canals. Just like the big cars, it's a lack of moderation but with profit in mind. Has your favourite holiday venue been spoiled by the masses off visiting cruise liners?
We can definitely not accuse Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump or the Gaza opponents of moderation. Our PM however is moderate when under pressure, to the point of oblivion of promised changes.
We should all take a step back and reconsider if we are going down a path which will be detrimental to our successors. What will they think of the world we are leaving them?
JB Drummond, Kilmarnock.
Read more letters
NHS must improve openness
Many may be puzzled about the significance of the Information Commissioner's criticism of NHS Forth Valley:('NHS board could face court for FoI delays', The Herald, July 15). Making a freedom of information request (FoI) is one of three methods of finding out how your local health service is performing and with what governance. Having spent many years on the inside – as much as GPs are on the inside – and now retired, the NHS performance can be difficult to scrutinise. The same applies for any member of the public, patients, carers and indeed MSPs.
Other methods of scrutiny include observing health board and integration joint board meetings (health and social care partnerships). Thirdly, some health board websites contain a lot of information including minutes and reports of previous meetings, annual reports and services and clinical guidance. Board communications teams will send out news at regular intervals to subscribers, but this is of course always the good news.
Generally speaking, when I attend to observe a health board meeting, I will be the only guest or perhaps with one or two others. We are not allowed to speak and are presented on arrival with around 350 pages of reports and the agenda of the meeting. For years, I have been campaigning to have this information made available to the public three working days before the meeting. The centre, the Health and Social Care Directorate, has advised boards that they should do this, but for some reason there is resistance, including from my own board, NHS Forth Valley. Frankly, this is ridiculous. There seems to be a fear that journalists will write about reports yet to be discussed and approved.
It is 20 years since the legal right to FoI commenced in Scotland and around 1.4 million requests have been made to public bodies in that time, 80% by members of the public. There is a cost to meet this freedom, but the Information Commissioner reckons FoI 'has helped to shift the balance of power between individuals and organisations, while also helping Scotland's public bodies become more open, transparent and accountable to the communities they serve'.
The NHS in Scotland has a Duty of Candour, a legal requirement to be open and honest with individuals when something goes wrong. I suggest that this extends to FoI efficiency and health boards' openness.
Philip Gaskell, Drymen.
Road system needs rebuilt
John Jamieson's drive from Folkestone to Ayr (Letters, July18) was a bold undertaking in today's traffic. I am sure we have all made similar nightmare journeys. A contributory reason is certainly traffic numbers, but also the increase in vehicle sizes – particularly length – since roads were built. Cars are half again as large and long as they were, and commercial vehicles are of a size and length never imagined. Some articulated trucks make it impossible to read motorway signage. The basic space requirement for today's vehicles must have at least doubled, while that provided by our roads has basically remained the same.
Another aspect is the closure of roads for police investigation after any accident, however minor. They make a measurement and photographic meal of it.
Most of continental Europe's roads and motorways were rebuilt after the war, and bridges over junctions are numerous, meaning fewer stop/start movements on any journey. Speed limits are also widely ignored.
The UK road system needs to be rebuilt, and we should adopt road rationing to reduce traffic while this is done.
Malcolm Parkin, Kinross.
Are our roads no longer fit for purpose? (Image: PA)
It's all went wrong
What has happened to grammar?
I agree with Peter Martin's letter (July 18). Using them, they, their when referring to a trans person is grammatically incorrect. I imagine we probably belong in the same age group when grammar was drummed into us at school.
My recent experiences of incorrect grammar include:
A call updating an order –' it has came in'.
In a reply from an MP's office – 'you will know that it has went through'.
From a television interview with a government minister – 'I'm sorry it has came to this'.
Don't try to contact me as I have went for a lie down to recover.
Marion Donnachie, Lennoxtown.
• Thank you to David Miller (Letters, July 19). Him and me think alike.
Peter McKerrell, Kilmacolm.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump is right about North Sea oil
Maybe it is Donald Trump's way of getting back at Keir Starmer for Labour sending activists to campaign for Kamala Harris in last year's presidential election. Either way, the US president seems to have no intention of obeying the convention that leaders of democratic do not delve into the domestic politics of their counterparts in other nations – and especially not while they are on a foreign tour. Today, Trump has doubled down on his attack on the windfarms he says are spoiling the view from his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. Posting on his Truth Social account he asserted that UK government ministers 'have essentially told drillers and oil companies that 'we don't want you'. Incentivise the drillers FAST. A VAST FORTUNE TO BE MADE for the UK, and far lower energy prices for the people.' We know how Ed Miliband will want to respond to that, assuming he has not been locked away on Starmer's orders for fear of spoiling the PM's friendship with the President. He will put on his bewildered air and tell us that wind and solar power are so much cheaper than oil and gas, and that what Trump is proposing would put us in the hands of 'fossil fuel dictators' who apparently have to power to set energy prices in the UK. The facts, though, are firmly on Trump's side in this case. If Britain's net-zero policy is delivering us such cheap energy how come we have some of the highest electricity and gas prices in the world? According to the government's own data on energy prices, UK domestic consumers paid an average of 36.4 pence for their electricity and 10.2 pence for their gas in 2023. US consumers paid 12.9 pence and 4.0 pence respectively. And no, the UK's high prices cannot be blamed on our reliance on gas. In the UK last year 29.2 per cent of electricity was generated by gas and 30 per cent from wind. In the US the corresponding figures were 42.5 per cent and 10.3 per cent. Nor is it true that the North Sea is in such sharp decline that Britain isn't missing much by refusing new licences and taxing the remaining industry to extinction (with a windfall tax which imposes a levy of 78 per cent on profits). According to the North Sea Transition Authority the combined 'provable and probable' reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea still amount to the equivalent of 3.3 billion barrels of oil. Offshore Energies UK – which represents the industry – puts it at 7.5 billion barrels. To put that into context, over 40 billion barrels equivalent of oil and gas have been extracted from the North Sea since the 1960s. Unlike the US, long-term self-sufficiency in oil and gas is no longer possible for the UK – at least not from the North Sea, although some estimates for shale gas suggest that fracking could produce up to 47 years' worth of supplies at the current rate of consumption. However, there are still useful quantities of oil and gas beneath the North Sea which would be exploited if only the government would allow it. Moreover, no one really knows how much is down there unless you look for it – but who is going to spend money prospecting for new reserves in the current climate? As for Trump's point about greater North Sea production lowering energy prices, it is hard to argue with it. Britain's eager adoption of renewables has not lowered prices, however much Miliband may promise us savings of £300 a year. On the contrary, we seem to be paying through the nose for our electricity and gas – around three times as much for our electricity and two and a half times as much for our gas compared to consumers in the much more fossil fuel-reliant US.


Reuters
9 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Europe's absurd US investment pledge brings risks
BERLIN, July 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump is a master of the art of making brash promises he has no intention of keeping. Ursula von der Leyen appears to have done the same to clinch the European Union's controversial tariff deal with its largest trading partner. But the European Commission president's vague pledge that $600 billion of European investment will flow stateside in the next three years is risky. If the U.S. president decides that the Europeans have failed to keep their end of the bargain, he will have an excuse to tear up the agreement. Just a day after announcing the deal that will impose a 15% charge on most European imports to the U.S., the two sides seemed at odds on many details – including the EU's investment promise. The White House said, opens new tab on Monday that the 'massive' pledge would be 'in addition' to current investment flows from the bloc, which it said exceed $100 billion a year. By contrast, the European Commission said, opens new tab on Tuesday that EU companies had simply 'expressed interest' in investing such an amount in the U.S. by 2029 – but didn't specify it would be on top of existing flows. In either case, it would be a big increase. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Europeans last year sent some $205 billion of new investments, opens new tab across the Atlantic. Strip out the $53 billion from the United Kingdom, and the EU number is closer to $150 billion. If the White House is correct, EU firms would have to more than double their investment spending every year until 2028 to deploy an extra $600 billion. Even the EU's more modest interpretation implies a sustained one-third jump from 2024 levels. This is as implausible as the EU's equally brash promise to import American energy worth $750 billion. Neither pledge may be binding. The deal clinched by Trump and von der Leyen has not yet been formalised in a document signed by both parties. Commission officials hope such a text might be signed by August 1, when the U.S. tariffs come into force. But even then Brussels cannot direct investment decisions by private European companies. Unlike Japan, which promised a similarly vague $550 billion investment fund, the EU cannot even support or subsidise U.S.-bound investments, as these powers belong to its members. Any transatlantic investment drive is also at odds with policies to encourage investment and boost productivity at home. Whether the lure of the U.S. market will trigger an outbreak of enthusiasm among European investors in the next few years is dubious. Tariffs may help persuade carmaker Volkswagen ( opens new tab and luxury giant LVMH ( opens new tab to produce more in the world's largest economy. But they must also factor in the effect of trade barriers on supply chains, Trump's unpredictable policies, and the consequences of higher import prices on U.S. growth and inflation. If Trump's trade deals fail to deliver the economic bonanza he promises his voters, he may look for an excuse to revisit the EU deal. Von der Leyen will then regret having made a vague promise that she knew she could not deliver. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.


The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European Commission proposes partially suspending Israel from Horizon programme
The European Commission has proposed partially suspending Israel from its flagship £80bn Horizon science research programme over what officials called a 'severe' humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It comes amid worldwide condemnation of Israel's actions in Gaza including demands by Donald Trump that it must do more to stop the 'real starvation'. On Tuesday, the leading international authority on food crises, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, said the 'worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out' in Gaza. Horizon Europe is among the most prestigious science research programmes in the world and has never suspended a country before. Officials believe, however, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is so severe that it now has a legal basis for suspension. In its proposal to member states the commission reports that '90% of households face severe water insecurity and malnutrition rates are rising sharply' with 'severe shortages of medicine' and 'virtually the entire Gaza population … at risk of famine'. Israel has denied that it is the cause of starvation, blaming it on other factors including the looting of aid by Hamas and distribution failures by the UN. It said on Tuesday that 'over 200 trucks were collected and distributed yesterday by the UN and international organisations' with an additional 260 awaiting collection and distribution. That volume of aid is, however, still below the levels needed. Before the war, an average of 500 aid trucks a day entered Gaza, supplying a population that was not hungry, had access to decent shelter, healthcare and clean water, had a functioning economy and also had a thriving agriculture sector that contributed to food availability. EU officials described the current aid increases as an improvement but said that they had been denied access to Gaza to verify the delivery of humanitarian aid and that there needed to be more entry points and distribution centres. Their proposal, if approved, would deny Israel access to one of the critical research areas within the Horizon programme, called the European Innovation Council (EIC), which specialises in disruptive technologies. Israel is one of the most successful member countries in the programme receiving about €200m (£173m) of the €900m allocated since 2021, with about €135 in grants and €65m in equity investment. There are currently 46 Israeli companies in the EIC programme, the EU said. The commission said in a statement: 'While Israel has announced a daily humanitarian pause in Gaza fighting and has met some of its commitments under the common understanding on humanitarian aid and access, the situation remains severe.' It added that the suspension would flow from its review of the trade association agreement with Israel, prompted by calls for a review of the agreement by the Netherlands backed by 17 countries in May. Officials said the partial suspension would be given legal effect through article 79 of the Euro-Mediterranean agreement if the action was deemed 'proportionate'. A seven-page proposal will be put to ambassadors from member states gathering in Brussels on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the EU-US trade deal. According to the rules the EU would need qualified majority, which means votes from about 15 member states to carry it through as long as they represent 65% of the bloc's population. This would almost certainly mean Germany would have to support the move. Senior EU officials said the mood at the ambassadors' meeting last week on the matter of humanitarian aid was 'heated' and there seemed to be a 'special urgency' about putting this proposal on the table. The UK was blocked from Horizon for three years after Brexit, rejoining in 2024, but officials said this was different to a suspension.