IN David Leask's report on political attitudes north and south of the Border ("Referendum unleashed a far left surge", The Herald, August 3), Radical Independence campaigner Jonathon Shafi states that the basis of his "radical left" world view is that "the more empowered people become, the most ambitious they become about their life and their society". The trouble is that this is also the basis of a right-wing world view – one that lets people buy their council houses, rely less on government, keep more of their own money, start businesses without excessive red tape, choose their children's schools, own shares, manage without trade unions, be treated like a customer in most aspects of life, and so on.
It's also not clear why such empowered individuals should want to increase or decrease immigration and security, reform or not reform welfare, or redistribute more or less of other people's money (the examples given of issues that separate right-wing from left-wing).
And what on earth is a "fair share for ordinary people"? This British Election Study question topic put me in mind of American economist Thomas Sowell's famous challenge: "What is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?" I'm not sure he's ever had a coherent response.
Keith Gilmour,
0/1, 18 Netherton Gardens, Netherton Gate, Glasgow.
HOORAH for Catriona Stewart's concern that raising the threshold below which inheritance tax is not paid is the opposite of redistributive but a vehicle for the better-off families to keep more of their unearned wealth from, for example, inheriting a parental house (“When the will is not necessarily the way”, The Herald, August 1). This should be considered in the overall context of how inequalities in any society creep in steadily by virtue of having a wide salary range taxed relatively lightly at the top end plus non-employment income from property rentals and share dividends and so on also lightly taxed. Inevitably those with more can build up more in savings, buy better housing and get better schooling for offspring.
We have yet to hear how such inequalities are going to be tackled in earnest by UK Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn, for example, or by our own SNP leadership and MPs. Even the eloquent Mhairi Black avoided the issue, preferring like the Holyrood leadership to talk about growth to relieve austerity, but avoiding the need to consider what redistribution of assets and income would work best for social justice. Perhaps great things will come out of the land ownership reforms promised.
Joe Darby ,
Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.
IN the last week or so I have been disgusted by much that I have heard and read both about “ugly nationalism” – normally in relation to the SNP – and about the problems caused by the number of desperate migrants in Calais.
As to the first, why the opprobrium because of the new involvement in politics and the legitimate election of a large majority of SNP MPs, when no such fuss was ever made when Labour or, before that, the Conservatives, held substantial sway in Scotland? No “one-party state” comments then.
But far worse to my mind is the attitude prevalent in south-east England where the human right to “get to work on time” without hindrance outweighs the human right of “swarms” of the “workshy” to escape from the mediaeval torture and murder that many have actually seen relatives suffer. At the same time, our Prime Minister pontificates only about stronger controls against these destitute human beings, when statistics made public seem to indicate that the UK is “threatened” by a much smaller number than other EU countries.
Is this English form of nationalism not the true ugly one?
If in the future (perish the thought!) Islamic State or its like were to overrun the UK, would we be sitting at home worrying about our human right of getting to work, or as fast as we could be trying to find a safe refuge elsewhere?
P Davidson,
Gartcows Road, Falkirk.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel