I WAS astounded to read Iain Macwhirter (“Shame on SNP for choosing to park its social conscience”, The Herald, March 24) mentioning Nicola Sturgeon in the same breath as Tony Blair. Mr Blair indeed lost his and the Labour Party’s credibility and vision for a fair society as Mr Macwhirter rightly stressed, but to suggest the SNP is going in the same direction due to decisions taken on upper tax rates beggars belief.
Where is the similarity with the SNP in government in Scotland having to put in place mitigation measures regarding the bedroom tax, abolishing prescription charges and avoiding the introduction of tuition fees? Compare this to the Tony Blair years and the Labour Party which introduced tuition fees, whose sole Scottish MP did not even turn up in the House of Commons to vote on its own amendment opposing the bedroom tax and which did not abolish prescription charges in Scotland when in power.
Furthermore, in Scotland the SNP has given a commitment that there will be no back door privatisation of the NHS, something Mr Blair ignited in England through PFI and PPP, costing the public purse dearly, and unsurprisingly the Conservatives have extended.
Mr Macwhirter’s claim that social justice comes second to national liberation for some in the SNP begs the question: if the SNP has not got social justice at the heart of its policies, then why did it establish a Welfare Fund while in government, to assist those who are being most affected by the austerity / benefit cuts of the Westminster establishment? This fund saw an additional £38 million allocated in the last budget by John Swinney.
Catriona C Clark,
52 Hawthorn Drive,
Banknock,
Falkirk.
THE idea that a critical analysis of the consequences of independence is somehow "degrading" to Scotland (Letters, March 25) is absurd.
It only really has any logic if the person considering it chooses for whatever partisan reasons to make the false distinction between the economy of Scotland and that of the rest of the UK.
In fact, the former is, and has been throughout the history of modern capitalism, an integrated part of the latter. In other words: economically, Scotland is a region of the UK.
And what is more, the people of Scotland voted in a referendum to keep it that way - so let's stop being so precious, and see that what is good or bad for the UK is good or bad for Scotland, and likewise what is good or bad for Scotland is good or bad for the UK.
Peter A Russell,
87 Munro Road,
Jordanhill,
Glasgow.
ROGER Graham (Letters, March 25) asserts that Alex Salmond's adviser Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett made a strong case for our having a modest fiscal surplus if independent from the rUK (letter 25 March 2016).
All the Scottish financial pointers for September 2013 did not seem to support his case, as yet another look at Holyrood's Scotland's Balance Sheet 2013 confirms. The revenue and spending transfers to which reference was made all seem to have be covered there. Our attributable income was identified as about £57 billion with oil and gas at £10bn, income tax, VAT and NI at some £30bn. Attributable expenditures totalled some £6bn, of which Westminster covered getting on for £20bn in “social protections” such as pensions, plus debt interest and defence at about £7bn.
We would necessarily have had to take on those covered expenditures ourselves, so it is hard to see any surplus at that time, never mind now with oil revenues heading for nil for a while.
Renewed talk by our Holyrood leaders of planning to break away based on modified financial analyses seems inappropriate. We certainly want to see the detailed figures used for justification. Getting our share of the UK's total assets might just give us collateral for borrowing substantially, but then the interest has to be found. Reportedly the UK's earnings from overseas investments have collapsed, so no help there.
Joe Darby,
Glenburn,
St Martins Mill,
Cullicudden,
Dingwall.
ROGER Graham (Letters, March 25) asserts that Denmark has "no oil and gas to call upon". I feel compelled to point out that Denmark is amongst the top 35 net oil exporters, currently has 19 fields in production and expects to be self-sufficient for the next 35 years. I'm told that it is planning also to start a bacon exporting business.
Robin Dyer,
Law House,
Sandford,
Strathaven.
I NOTE your front-page headline, “Salmond: A deal on the pound may not have been reached" (The Herald, March 25).
So, "Project Fear" is a misnomer. It was in fact "Project Reality".
James Miller,
13 Burgh Hall Street,
Partick,
Glasgow.
WITH Nicola Sturgeon humming and hawing over increasing the tax rate for high earners from 45p to 50p (“"Sturgeon leaves door open to hike tax rate for well paid", The Herald, March25) perhaps she could spare us the analysis and qualification over coming months and just palm us off with a simple "mebbe's aye, mebbe's naw".
R Russell Smith,
96 Milton Road,
Kilbirnie.
ALEX Salmond has now joined Nicola Sturgeon in setting forth tactics and strategy for the next referendum (“Salmond demands a fresh look at currency for an independent Scotland”, The Herald, March 24) giving the impression that it is almost imminent. This is from a signatory to the Edinburgh Agreement (his terminology) which contained a clause confirming that both sides would respect the outcome of the referendum. Perhaps some need to be reminded of that outcome – more than two million Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom.
The astonishing aspect is that such jettisoning of undertakings (“once in a generation”) does not, so far anyway, appear to have adversely affected the SNP’s popularity. One would have thought that the Scottish people would have deserved more integrity from its politicians.
David S W Williamson,
49 Pinnaclehill Park,
Kelso.
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