Why is Labour holding back? Is it willing the SNP to fail?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
41 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Sometimes what communities really need from councils is bravery
Schools across Scotland have shut their doors for the summer, but not all will reopen for the autumn term. If you have followed any of The Herald's education coverage in recent months, you have read stories about council strategies for mothballing schools and nurseries and the Scottish Government guidance which sets the rules for this process. Mothballing refers to the temporary closure of a school (or nursery), and local authorities are required to review this decision at least once a year. Mothballing is intended to provide schools with a lifeline. Instead, it is often used as a way for councils to prolong the inevitable. As a result, painful decisions become more painful and drag on for years. The vast majority of mothballed schools never reopen, to the point that campaigners have come to describe mothballing as 'closure by stealth'. Read more: It is not difficult to see why this is the case. Technically, local authorities are only allowed to mothball a school when the roll has fallen to zero, or very close to zero, according to guidance for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. At first glance, a recent decision regarding Fountainhall Primary School in the Scottish Borders Council appears to be a textbook case for mothballing. On closer inspection, however, it proves to be a better example of a council trying to soften the blow — and likely deflect some heat — by kicking the can down the road on a likely closure. Between 2020 and 2024, Fountainhall's roll fell from 24 to five pupils, with a total capacity of 50. There was only one child enrolled for the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. Fountainhall fits some of the criteria established in the mothballing guidance: it is only for schools with a 'very low' roll where education for the pupils is 'not presently viable.' However, there is another important criterion that the Scottish Government guidance outlines. Local authorities should only mothball schools when the roll is low and there is good reason to believe that the low roll is only temporary. According to the guidance, the 'and' is crucial and it is clear about why. Even though permanent closure is more final than mothballing, it triggers a statutory consultation process that involves extensive community engagement, culminating in approval from the Scottish Government. This consultation process places additional requirements on local authorities and, in theory, provides more protections for parents and community members to have their voices heard. An important side note: councils love to use the word 'consultation,' but they do not usually mean this type of statutory consultation. What they usually mean is engagement, not the legal definition of consultation found in the 2010 Act. I like to think of it as the difference between a consultation and a Consultation. The mothballing process requires consultation, not Consultation, and councils have much more freedom to decide what that looks like. This game of semantics frustrates parents and rural campaigners, because the guidance explicitly states that mothballing should not be a way to deprive communities of their legal right to a Consultation about the potential closure of their school. However, because mothballing often leads to closure, parents feel that the ultimate Consultation isn't an accurate reflection of the situation. If a school has been 'temporarily closed' for one, two, three years, is it any surprise that few parents asked about enrolling their children or considered moving to the area? This means that when the legal Consultation on closure finally rolls around, the picture is skewed. Interest has fallen off. Parents who had battled the original mothballing have since been forced to move on. Their children attend schools in other communities, and a fight for another transition is different from a fight to keep children in place. All of this is why guidance states that if a council wants to mothball a school, it must be more likely than not that the school will be viable in the long term. Otherwise, the council should initiate the more formal process of permanent closure. And yet, during the recent debate at Scottish Borders Council (SBC) over whether to mothball Fountainhall, the language made it clear that the assumption was that the school would not become viable in the future. The council papers were explicit: 'The Fountainhall school roll is projected to be 1 from August, which is an out of catchment placement. 'Based on this, and considering future planning and migration, Officers project that the number of children will not significantly increase in the coming years within the Fountainhall catchment area.' If the school is being mothballed due to low enrollment, and the council has no expectation that the enrollment will increase, then the question should be about closure, not mothballing. In their objections to the mothballing decision, a group of parents seized on this. In a letter to councillors on the eve of the vote, they called for a statutory consultation on closure to begin "without delay". "Fountainhall deserves proper consultation and legal safeguards – not administrative shortcuts that carry permanent consequences." On the surface, this sounds counterproductive for a group that is fighting to save their school. However, what the parents recognised is that the permanent closure process should provide them with more protections and impose greater oversight on the council's ultimate decision. If nothing else, it offers parents a sense that the democratic process is being followed. As many have told me, an unwanted decision is easier to swallow if there is trust that decision-makers were brave enough to take the hard way out. Instead, another community is looking at unknown years of uncertainty, likely followed by a painful trek towards an even more painful conclusion.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Disabled people being left in limbo following 'chaotic' Commons vote on welfare reforms claims Lanarkshire MSP
The Bill initially proposed to slash eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP Motherwell and Wishaw's MSP slammed Labour MPs for showing 'appalling disregard for sick and disabled people' following a 'chaotic' night in the House of Commons prior to the vote on the Bill for welfare reforms. The SNP's Clare Adamson claims that the Westminster chaos over Labour's proposed Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was the result of dismissing disabled people. The Bill initially proposed to slash eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a move which the government's own analysis showed that 800,000 people would lose support by the end of the decade. After months of backlash from disability and anti-poverty groups, an eleventh-hour change to the bill threw the vote into 'chaos and confusion', and resulted in The UK Government promising a review of PIP to be concluded by autumn 2026, which Ms Adamson says is leaving disabled people in limbo. A revolt by Labour MPs led to 49 of them voting against the motion but that number would have been far higher but for the government making a number of eleventh-hour adjustments to gain support for the Bill. SNP MPs voted against the plans, but only four Labour MPs out of 37 in Scotland eventually voted against the watered-down Bill following a five-hour debate in the House of Commons. Pamela Nash, MP for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke, who previously criticised the Tories when they were in government over cuts to disability support, was among those to vote in favour of the Bill. According to the DWP's own figures the undiluted plans would have driven 250,000 people – including 50,000 children – into poverty. The bill had initially proposed to slash eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a move which the government's own analysis showed 800,000 people would lose support by the end of the decade. The Scottish Government committed to shield disabled people from Labour cuts by protecting the Adult Disability Payment, Scotland's equivalent of PIP, from any reductions. Adamson has pointed out that any Labour cuts would have a knock-on impact on Scotland's budget. Ms Adamson said: 'Labour has shown an appalling disregard for sick and disabled people whose lives will be affected by their plans. I cannot imagine how it felt for a disabled person to watch as their life and livelihood was bartered in real time. 'Shame on the Scottish Labour MPs who did nothing, those who backed the Bill when it would push 250,000 people in poverty, those who backed the 'deal' which would push 150,000 into poverty and create a two-tiered system. 'And then those who sat on their hands amidst the chaos last night. Chaos which was the direct result of Labour's refusal to meaningfully engage with disability groups; the people who said these plans were wrong from the start. 'The SNP Scottish Government confirmed that Scotland would not follow Labour's lead and would protect Adult Disability Payments. But the message being sent at Westminster matters - as do the spending implications for Scotland. 'These changes were going to be made before a review even took place. That is no way to run a country. Keir Starmer rushed through a deal in order to save his skin. It's indefensible. 'This saga has been characterised by cruelty, at worst, and indifference at best, for the real people affected. Sick and disabled people have been sidelined and now Labour MPs have voted to continue the uncertainty. 'It's time for meaningful engagement with the people affected by these proposals. That should have been done in the first place. This Labour administration is unfit to govern and Scottish Labour MPs showed they are not at the decision table. 'The SNP will always stand up for Scotland. And with the limited powers available to the Scottish Parliament, we will protect sick and disabled people in Motherwell and Wishaw, and across the country. But we need independence to be free of this for good.' *Don't miss the latest headlines from around Lanarkshire. Sign up to our newsletters here.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
SNP MP warns of authoritarian slippery slope after Palestine Action vo
The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025 is now expected to be debated and voted on by the House of Lords on Thursday before it becomes law. The SNP and the LibDems abstained, while 87 Tories and 275 Labour MPs supported the effort. READ MORE: MPs' 'hypocrisy' blasted as Suffragettes celebrated while Palestine Action banned Questions had been raised as to why the SNP abstained, to which MP Brendan O'Hara responded to in an opinion piece for The National. He said that the SNP did not want to be seen to vote against proscribing other the three other groups in the vote: the "Maniacs Murder Cult", a Moldovan neo-Nazi group, the Russian Imperial Movement – a far-right group aiming to rebuild the Russian Empire – and its paramilitary wing the Russian Imperial Legion. He wrote: "Despite being asked, the UK government, in a disgraceful, cynical, manipulation of parliamentary procedure, refused to separate these groups and allow MPs to make individual decisions on whether each of them met the threshold for proscription – forcing an all or nothing vote. "And that decision to lump all three groups together in the way that they did should lead any reasonable person to conclude that this was a grubby political decision to proscribe a group that the government simply don't like, and not what the government claim was an issue of vital national security."
