How the EU youth mobility scheme could save Brexit
'No plans for a youth mobility scheme' had been the line before the election. Now she says: 'We do want to see better trading relationships between our countries and we do want to enable young people from Europe and the UK to be able to work and travel overseas.' She's still having, it seems obvious, Herbert-Lom-in-Pink-Panther-style panic attacks at the thought of the Reform vote, so she caveats the thought immediately by saying, 'we've got to get the balance right, because I do not want to see net migration increasing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The winners and losers of Labour's first year in power
It is one year since Labour's 'loveless landslide' and already millions of individuals, and the economy, are suffering. Last summer, Rachel Reeves ominously declared the Tories had left Britain with a £22bn 'black hole' in the public finances. It was a sobering shift in tone from the Chancellor who had spent the months prior promising no tax rises for 'working people'. And it left her walking a careful tightrope of raising money without breaking the party's central pledge: to leave alone income tax, VAT and National Insurance paid by workers. In doing so, she clumsily launched tax raids on pensioners, home buyers, business owners and farmers instead. Here, Telegraph Money speaks to the winners and losers after a year of Labour. Losers Pensioners Ten months on from Ms Reeves's maiden Budget, Peter Ferguson has still not forgiven her for ripping up his carefully-laid financial planning. The Chancellor used the Budget to bring pensions into the scope of inheritance tax, upending millions of calibrated retirement plans. Mr Ferguson, 68, from Edinburgh, had hoped to pass on most of his £800,000 pot to his children. He believes the changes amount to 'state theft'. 'The Tories told people to make far greater provision for themselves because the state can no longer be relied on to provide for everyone, and I agree with that,' he says. 'But now there is no incentive to save to provide for your family – I would be better off going to restaurants, drinking nice wine and going on holidays.' He adds: 'If I have paid tax throughout my life, as I have to by law, then inheritance tax and stealing from pension funds is just reprehensible. I am determined not to let this government have a penny more than I have already.' He intends to take the tax-free lump sum of £200,000 and spend the rest on 'assets that will hopefully accrue value', like paintings. Farmers Farms were previously exempt from inheritance tax under agricultural property relief. However, changes brought in by the Government mean that, from April 2026, the relief will only apply to the first £1m of combined agricultural and business property. After that, the relief drops to 50pc. David Barton's Gloucestershire farm will now attract an inheritance tax bill of £800,000 when it is passed on to his son, Ben, 34. The 57-year-old says: 'I am disappointed because we engaged with Labour politicians before the election. All the noises were very promising, and things were okay until the Budget. That was a massive blow to the industry. It has completely knocked the stuffing out of us.' At a union meeting last year, Mr Barton raised his concerns directly with Steve Reed, the Environment Secretary. 'My question to him was, 'Can you tell me when I am going to die? Because I don't know when I am going to die, and if I get it wrong, the business is gone.' 'There are many better ways that you could raise this revenue from the farming industry than the way you are doing it. You can't help but wonder if this is just genuinely trying to raise revenue, or is there something a little bit vindictive about this?' Labour also slashed sustainable farming incentives – grants for farmers who adopted sustainable practices to protect the environment. 'It's really destabilised everything,' he adds. 'There's been a massive drive towards environmental improvement, and I think as farmers we have done a tremendous job. But the funding that supports that is absolutely required. It's an all-time low for morale within the farming community.' Property buyers Labour's young voter base had hoped the party might offer them help on to the property ladder. But instead, the Chancellor ignored them, neglecting to extend a stamp duty discount which sent the tax rate soaring. It means first-time buyer, Emily Fishburn, 29, now faces paying an extra £1,000 on her new home in Nuneaton. She says: 'We put an offer in before the threshold changed, which is so frustrating, because now we have that as an additional cost we weren't anticipating. 'I thought it was going to get better for first-time buyers under Labour, but it's got a lot harder. 'We've been saving for a house for five years – we'd rather spend that money on extra things for the house, like a sofa, things for the kitchen. We'll have to make do with sitting on the floor for a while.' Landlords Britain's property investors have been attacked by politicians of all stripes ever since the Tories began whittling away their tax breaks. Unsurprisingly, landlords' fortunes have not improved much under Labour. It is pressing ahead with plans to force landlords to meet energy efficiency standards by the end of the decade. Many are expected to spend tens of thousands insulating properties, or sell up and exit the market. And landlords have been left despairing over the Renters' Rights Bill. The legislation will end 'no fault' evictions, give tenants longer notice periods and restrict rent increases. The Bill will not apply in Scotland, where rent controls and eviction restrictions have already been put in place by the Scottish National Party. Derek Tyson, 54, is a buy-to-let landlord with dozens of properties across Lothian, Fife and Angus – a portfolio built up gradually over 30 years. He says: 'Labour is a total mess. Landlords have been kicked in the guts for years, and they've done nothing to ease the burden.' The Government is also ramping up its 'Making Tax Digital' project, requiring around 900,000 landlords and freelancers earning over £20,000 to report their taxes quarterly, rather than every year, from April 2026. Mr Tyson sees it as yet another regulatory hoop for landlords like him to jump through. 'It's just going to put up costs. If I can't recoup it in rents, I'll get out of the market. You can't keep getting more money from landlords without affecting tenants,' he says. 'You can't keep taking money from people – it doesn't grow the economy. But this is what Labour does.' Mr Tyson believes the Government should focus on building more homes, rather than punishing landlords. 'If there's less stock, rents go up. It's GCSE economics. I don't understand why Rachel Reeves and these guys don't get it.' Second home owners Since April 1, local authorities have been able to use additional powers to charge double council tax on second homes. While it was a Tory policy, Labour rubbed salt in the wound by increasing the stamp duty surcharge for second home buyers from 3pc to 5pc. Peter Drown, 75, has been renting a flat near St Paul's in London for the past six months. He lives in Truro, Cornwall, with his wife, but spends every other week working in the office in the City as an accountant. As a result, he has been hit with a £4,246.90 council tax bill. In total, his bill for both properties is now £8,750 – now, he says he will give up his flat. 'I've been working in the City since 1969, and I've paid a lot of tax,' says Mr Drown. 'This is not a real second home, it is not a holiday home.' He adds: 'If you lived in somewhere like Birmingham, where the council is bust, you could almost understand it. But the City of London has plenty of money. Why are they messing around with the likes of me?' Business owners One of Labour's most unpopular policies has been its increase to National Insurance contributions paid by businesses. The rate they pay on an employee's salary rose from 13.8pc to 15pc, and the salary threshold at which point National Insurance kicks in also fell from £9,100 to £5,000 (though this was accompanied by a rise in the 'employment allowance', which helps the smallest employers offset the rising costs). Hugh Vinney, 37, chief executive of online private school Minerva Virtual Academy, is bitterly disappointed. He became a first-time Labour voter last year, feeling disillusioned with a Conservative government that he says hadn't offered much to business owners like him. 'In the business world, there was a lot of hope, particularly on the small business side, because they were talking about 'growth, growth, growth,' so I was excited for Labour's agenda,' he says. 'Pre-election, they were talking to and consulting small businesses, but by the time of the Budget, they had completely forgotten about us.' The National Insurance raid, as well as the increased minimum wage, has forced Mr Vinney to 'pull up the drawbridge in terms of hiring'. He adds: 'It means you have to be much more careful about wage increases, which is not what you want to be doing in a growing business. National Insurance and minimum wage changes are preventing us from being able to reward people for hard work.' Britain, Mr Vinney says, is 'a country where it is not a good place to be an entrepreneur', and that anyone wanting to start a business should do so elsewhere. 'Small businesses are an engine for growth. But we have been abandoned.' Private school parents Television presenter, Ana Boulter, 47, has two children at independent schools. She has been left feeling betrayed by Labour's decision to impose 20pc VAT on school fees. Ms Boulter's daughter is autistic, and, like many parents, she worries local state schools do not have the resources or expertise to deal with her child's needs. She is now considering home schooling after her children's fees rose by 21pc in a year. She also takes issue with the perception that parents choose to send their children to private schools simply to make them get ahead in life. She says: 'The people who are really buying advantage are those who can afford to buy houses next to outstanding state schools. What parents in the independent sector are doing is buying an education that suits their children's needs which they believe the state can't provide. 'The way ministers have spoken about private education, do they not think about how this affects the children? They are actively pushing a group of people out and saying, 'You don't matter, you don't count, you are not important, you are insignificant'. You are a political smear on our outlook.' Winners Few would describe themselves as 'winners' from Ms Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer's tenure so far, but some groups have undeniably been given extra support. Net zero supporters Ed Miliband and his Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was a surprising winner of Ms Reeves's first spending review. The Warm Homes Discount, which some speculated would be cut, was expanded. And the budget for the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, which doles out £7,500 grants to households who want to install a heat pump, was also raised by £1.8bn. It comes too late for Tim Adams, 67, who has already made use of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), a now-defunct scheme which paid early adopters for generating renewable energy over a seven-year period. Mr Adams believes Labour's decision to continue funding grants specifically for heat pumps, rather than generalised payback schemes, is a shift in the right direction. He says: 'The RHI was in some ways more generous, but now the £7,500 comes directly off the cost, and that will be preferable to those who can't pay the money up front. 'Solar panels and batteries stack up in a way that you should be able to do it on your own, and in the same way, electric car prices have come down to the point you'd have to question how much that still needs to be subsidised. ' People are so negative about heat pumps – a lot of it through misunderstanding. They don't understand what the potential is, and I think that's a huge problem for the Government. The messaging just isn't cutting through.' Public sector workers One of Labour's first acts in Government was to hand public sector workers a pay rise – to the tune of £6.9bn. The decision to capitulate to pay review bodies briefly quelled frequent strikes by teachers and doctors. However, unions have warned that further industrial action is likely unless the Government agrees to an above-inflation pay rise in 2026. Dr Erin Gourley, a psychiatric registrar, welcomed her 5.4pc pay award this year. The 33-year-old mother-of-two says: 'Wes Streeting [the Health Secretary] is saying lots of positive things, and that's a lot better than what we were getting under the last government.' However, she still feels worse off than before the election. 'I would say finances have progressively become more stretched over the year, and we are having to be a bit more cautious with our spending,' she says. 'One of the things that can make it worse is that I do a lot of out-of-hours work, a lot of evenings, nights and weekends, and my childcare needs are more than most jobs. Balancing that is particularly difficult.' The British Medical Association estimates resident doctor pay remains 21pc lower today in real terms than it was in 2008. Doctors in Dr Gourley's pay grade earn around £61,825 a year, according to the BMA. Dr Gourley, who lives in Coventry, believes Labour must reverse this decline. 'In terms of where I was in 2015 when I started working, I don't think the pay has increased commensurately with the skills I've taken on as I've become more senior,' she says. A 6pc pay rise was awarded to junior doctors, 3.6pc for other NHS staff, 3.25pc for members of the Armed Forces, and 4pc for teachers and prison officers. Senior civil servants will also receive a 3.25pc pay rise, while school staff such as teaching assistants, caterers and caretakers will receive 3.2pc. The Government was approached for comment.
Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
How, one year after defeating Tories, Labour has delivered more of the same
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It hasn't been the happiest of 'birthday' weeks for the government at Westminster. Labour colleagues were not in a celebratory mood on the anniversary of their 'landslide' election win. In Westminster, it wasn't hard to find government parliamentarians griping about their own record whilst in open rebellion. The Welfare Bill debate on Tuesday was, for those of us who still wear the scars, a throwback to the chaos at the height of the Brexit debacle. Ministers were making U-turns at the despatch box just before key votes. It was difficult to keep up, so rapid was the disintegration of the Bill over the course of one afternoon. Potential rebels were unsure what they were voting for at the end of the day. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So feverish was the atmosphere that the Chancellor's tears at Prime Minister's Questions led to a bout of frenzied speculation as to what it all meant. The Conservatives, struggling to find a meaningful role themselves, were quick to jump on the visible upset of Rachel Reeves, in a way that reflected rather worse on them than the incumbent of Number 11. It did, however, tell a story of a government that has lost its way. This week's events were more reminiscent of an administration staggering to the end of its time in office rather than at the peak of its powers. Keir Starmer has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives (Picture: Carl Court) | Getty Images Hard Tory Brexit remains A major challenge is that Labour doesn't know what it's for. Inevitably it has failed to live up to the expectation of change that people wanted to see following last year's rejection of the Conservatives. Westminster has levers Holyrood ministers could only dream of to deliver policies, but doesn't use them. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The increasing levels of poverty in the UK, the lack of investment in infrastructure, an outdated parliamentary and electoral system, a hard Tory Brexit that no one seems to want and the UK certainly can't afford – all areas they could have delivered on. A year ago, there was an appetite for change. Labour won a landslide in terms of seats, albeit a shallow one in terms of the vote because of who they weren't. Rather than taking the historic opportunity afforded to them, unfathomably, Labour's message has been one of continuity, the very thing that people had voted against. Continuity was seen in the cuts to the winter fuel payment that hit the most vulnerable, continuity in failing to fix our relationship with the rest of Europe that hampers growth, and continuity in maintaining the Conservatives' failed fiscal rules. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Contrast with Blair and Salmond Labour won power and don't know what to do with it. Compare with previous incoming administrations who knew that people had voted for change. In 1997 on day one as Chancellor, Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent. In Scotland, in the days after the SNP's narrow election win in 2007, Alex Salmond changed the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government, and scrapped bridge tolls amongst a range of other measures. These actions by two distinct administrations told the electorate that not only had the voters' message of change been heard but it was being delivered. These opening acts also told voters something of the governments' plans. Blair's New Labour was determined to be financially prudent and Salmond's administration was delivering a distinctive Scottish Government that would make up its own mind on policy and pursue devolution that diverged from Westminster where the First Minister believed that to be in Scotland's best interest. Agree or disagree, these administrations knew what they were for from the start. Wrong side of poverty issue Even after this disastrous week, there is no sign of improvement. Government sources have briefed that the rebellion over the Welfare Bill will mean that the two-child cap will remain in place. The Child Poverty Action Group said of the latter policy: 'This tax on siblings is the biggest driver of rising child poverty in the UK today.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former Blair adviser John McTernan remarked, with palpable frustration, that the government's position appeared to be 'you stopped us harming people with disabilities, so we'll hurt children'. This Labour government seems to be on the wrong side of tackling poverty and getting people back to work. Scottish Labour are no better. The day after the rebellion, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about the UK Government's vision for Scotland. Labour MP after Labour MP stood up, not to talk about their hopes and aspirations for their own government, but rather to focus on the Scottish Government. More than once, the chair had to remind Scottish Labour MPs that their job was to scrutinise the UK rather than the Scottish Government. Their focus on Holyrood is something of an unintentional complement to the SNP administration and says much about the lack of imagination or clear mission within the ranks of Scottish Labour MPs. The UK Parliament has powers and responsibilities over Scotland far in excess of that of Holyrood. The fact that Labour MPs don't have much to say about that speaks to a malaise in a party which doesn't know what to do with the power it has attained. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Lacking credibility This week Scottish Labour were one of the last holdouts of loyalty to Keir Starmer. The Welfare Bill would have a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament's own efforts to reduce poverty, but few Scottish Labour MPs joined the rebellion. As Labour leaders in Wales, London, Manchester and elsewhere were joining in calls for change to the Bill, Scottish Labour remained silent. Their claims that they wouldn't introduce the changes in Holyrood, that they failed to oppose in Westminster, lack credibility. That's the problem. Labour showed this week that they lack credibility or a plan to end the chaos. One year on, the great change has led to more of the same.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: Labour rebels were elected with a welfare reform mandate
A reader says Rachel Reeves' tears would be understandable if they were about Labour rebels wrecking her work to reform the benefits system Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... If Rachel Reeves had said she was crying because a large section of Labour MPs comprehensively destroyed her and Work and Pension Secretary Liz Kendall's hard, vital work and plans to make a few small steps to reform the benefits system and booted it into the long grass I doubt there'd be so much puerile fuss, including the undertones on BBC Scotland's Morning Call that narrowly avoided diagnosing it as a girlie thing. The truth is these rebels were elected on a manifesto that included welfare reform, so the basics of it were well known – as were the dire financial implications of the current torrent of claims and claimants. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Perhaps these two ministers should just have resigned, explained why, precipitated the increasingly inevitable Greece 2009 collapse facing this country and trigger the brutal policies that entails. Rachel Reeves looked visibly tearful as Keir Starmer spoke during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday (Picture: House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire) 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 in the media 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, Aberdeenshire Reform imperative Wednesday's backbench rebellion has undermined the Prime Minister's reputation and that of his Chancellor. In effect it has driven a coach and horses through planned savings on welfare of £5 billion and has imperilled the sanctity of the Chancellor's 'fiscal rules'. Politically sensitive tax rises in the Autumn Budget are now a virtual lock-in. Ouch! It's enough to bring tears to the Chancellor's eyes. However, none of this should be allowed to obscure the challenges of welfare reform that remain. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The Institute of Fiscal Studies has reported that more than four million people of working age currently receive some kind of health benefit (ten per cent of the workforce). This is expected to rise to around 5.5 million by the end of the Parliament. This is unsustainable! We have a system unfit for purpose, and one which can be easily gamed. The failure of Labour (soft and hard) to acknowledge the consensus around these shortcomings perhaps says more about ideological desires to pursue redistribution policies – albeit by the back door – regardless of the wider social and economic consequences. The inefficiency of the present system is an obvious misuse of scarce public resources. The real injustice here is the diversion of these resources away from those who are most in need of genuine welfare support. Moreover, cost-cutting can never be the primary justification for fundamental change in this sensitive policy area: fundamental reform remains an urgent imperative in and for its own sake! Ewen Peters, Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire Head over heels The Labour government has made so many U-turns that Keir Starmer doesn't know whether he is standing on his head or his heels, but he has a number of options. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He could resign, which is unlikely, or he could threaten to call a snap election, which would frighten many of his MPs who have got used to their £90k salary, index-linked pension and other freebies, but have Reform UK snapping at their heels. Many welfare recipients have got used to their easy life and in fact have become institutionalised, as the balance between work and welfare is quite narrow and many just don't want the bother of having to work. One easy solution which would not come into force immediately would be to freeze welfare payments just as the the personal tax allowance has been frozen. James Macintyre, Linlithgow, West Lothian Dig deeper Perhaps, the highly gutted Welfare Reform Bill will turn out to be a benefit in disguise for a beleaguered Labour government. With the loathsome moves withdrawn, we're left with a reasonably decent Bill at some cost. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Welfare is not the only aspect of government that is broken. The NHS and education are also stretched to breaking point, and I would suggest that the tax system is broken too. Only defence seems exempt. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her own self-imposed fiscal limits. If they were removed, as the German equivalent was recently, so much that is broken could begin to be repaired. Quite frankly, all of us who can afford it should be paying more tax, and those who can't, less. The Patriotic Millionaires, for example, are desperate to increase their share. For far too long, raising taxes has been the elephant in the room, which has never been a vote winner. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is now. If we could be assured that our increased taxes went towards the urgent repair of our NHS, education and welfare, we'd be prepared, I'm quite sure, to delve deeper into our financial pockets. All three deserve nothing less. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh Forced laughter Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad We have all been to that family wedding where unpopular members of the extended family attend whom, normally, we avoid. We engage in the forced laughter, the exaggerated smiles and back slapping to ensure the day is not ruined. Equally risible was that wonderfully over the top public show of support as Rachel Reeves unexpectedly turned up to join Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting at the launch of the ten-year plan for England's NHS in East London. It surely gave 'fake news' new meaning. John V Lloyd, Inverkeithing, Fife Turn back time The election of Keir Starmer with a near-landslide majority last year I considered great news. I confess freely that was mainly because he deflated the SNP. To say I have been disappointed since would be a gross understatement. The trouble is, if I abandon Labour, where could I possibly turn? The Tories are in as bad if not worse a mess; the Lib Dems are wishy-washy and the Greens in Scotland a gender-obsessed joke; the SNP unthinkable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Can we turn the clock back please to the halcyon days of pre-devolution? Alexander McKay, Edinburgh Critical thinking I was disappointed to read Jenny Lindsay's latest opinion piece: 'Self-righteous zealots driven by hate decided I was a 'genocidal Terf'' (Scotsman, 3 July). Surely Scottish feminism is not this myopic? Without a doubt, the ongoing genocide in Gaza is one of the world's most pressing feminist concerns. Tens of thousands of Palestinian women and girls are being killed, maimed, displaced, bereaved and subjected to sexual violence by Israel's military forces, according to the UN. War is always a feminist issue. Palestinian women at the forefront of their nation's cause are supported by an international network of feminists that stretches all the way to Scotland. In the last few years, I have met so many incredible women from all over the country who are marching, writing, fundraising and speaking out for peace. This is the reality of the pro-Palestinian movement. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I know many women are bruised by Scotland's shockingly toxic debate on gender reform in recent years. Like Jenny, I took my fair share of misogynistic abuse as a candidate at the last Scottish Parliament election. I don't doubt people are still saying appalling things to gender critical women on the internet. But social media doesn't represent real people or real movements. Its profit-seeking algorithms feed on and amplify hate and abuse. It's time for Scottish feminists to pull themselves out of the maelstrom. There is so much real work to do. Catriona MacDonald, Glasgow Publicity seekers I don't understand some of the comments amongst readers about Kneecap and Bob Vylan's controversial outbursts during performances at Glastonbury, the latest being Lewis Finnie (Letters, 3 July). The real reason for the behavior of these so-called artists is to draw attention to themselves and seek publicity. They have little interest in the people of Gaza. If they did, they would be actively helping them rather than mouthing off about the IDF. Benjamin Netanyahu and his despotic regime control the IDF and it is they that should be condemned. The BBC should ban airing 'high risk' labelled acts such as Bob Vylan, not just live feeds. With all the publicity, these acts portray themselves as martyrs and gain sympathy amongst the weak-minded. Prancing on a stage and getting fans wound up through hate speech is one thing, it's another to donate their fee to help the Gaza victims or be called out as hypocrites. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Mr Finnie suggests that the war will end with the elimination of Hamas, I would beg to differ. Leaving Netanyahu in power risks a wider conflict in the Middle East and tens of thousands more innocent civilians deaths in another bloodbath. By stating 'yes innocents die' he dismisses the current apocalypse as collateral damage. Really? Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Seating plan On a recent visit to Haymarket station in Edinburgh I was dismayed that the large waiting hall before the ticket barriers had seats for coffee concessions – but not a single public seat for the travelling public or those meeting them. That simply isn't good enough. Christopher Ruane, Lanark, South Lanarkshire Write to The Scotsman
