Many commentators, and not just political opponents, are claiming that Rachel Reeves lied to us all in the run-up to the Budget (“Starmer insists ‘no misleading’ by Reeves over public finances”, The Herald, December 2). I don’t think she lied, but I am reminded of what Sir Robert Armstrong, Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet Secretary, said when he gave evidence at the Spycatcher trial in Australia in 1986: "It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth." A fine distinction that was widely ridiculed at the time and hasn’t improved since.
But shabby as Ms Reeves' behaviour was, she’s surpassed by Sir Keir Starmer, who now boasts repeatedly about the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, which he claims to be passionate about. Where was his passion last year when he suspended seven Labour MPs for backing a motion from the SNP to do exactly that? And that highlights the problem with Sir Keir: he reminds me of Marx (Groucho, that is): “These are my principles and, if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Emergency questions
In all the furore as to did she or didn’t she mislead us deliberately about the state of the nation’s finances, I believe the answer could be found if Rachel Reeves was asked to explain precisely what on earth was the point and purpose of her televised November 4 “emergency" briefing. I watched it and her only message seemed to be another warning about the need for us to prepare for more taxation. That warning in reality was unnecessary, even pointless, because of all the previous gloomy leaks about the coming Budget.
On further thought, I wondered whether it could have been part of a cunning plan on her part so that on Budget Day, to cheers and waving of order papers, she could say that at the 11th hour, despite all the (inevitably inherited) financial problems she faced she had managed to avoid income tax increases.
The question remains as to what was her purpose in holding the November 4 “emergency” briefing as with hindsight it looks to have been solely to paint an incorrect picture of the nation’s finances. Why?
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop.
Read more letters
- Your job is to protect us, Mr Swinney, not attack us over our fears
- Scottish Labour split from Westminster? Not likely
- Budget takeaway: those on benefits will benefit the most
Gaslighting the public
It seems Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been caught gaslighting the British public by claiming a £30 billion black hole in the nation’s finances, when she knew from the Office for Budget Responsibility that this was simply not the case. Outrageous? Certainly. Surprising? Sadly not.
The Labour Party, the BBC and most of the Left have been gaslighting us for decades on every major policy issue. In fact, the evidence is all around us that the truth is the opposite of what we are piously told by "progressive" politicians and journalists.
• The claims that endless effectively unlimited non-western immigration is in our interests.
• The manifesto promises of lower energy bills, while pursuing the Net Zero policy, which is intrinsically incapable of achieving that end.
• The insistence that multiculturalism is a success despite the unending evidence to the contrary. • The confected outrage about "stop and search" and then when the police back off, the complete indifference to the epidemic of stabbings in our cities.
• The ostentatious assertion of a commitment to the rights of women and children, at the same time as the omerta over half a century of racist grooming gangs in our cities and towns.
• The High Streets where the evidence of organised crime, illegal immigration and modern slavery is blatant. The plush barbers’ shops with hardly any customers. The endless nail-bars, often with a majority of male nail-technicians.
• The claims of championing "working people" while structuring the benefits system so that many are trapped on the dole.
The evidence that their claims are false is all around us, but most have been brow-beaten into silence. As George Orwell observed in his great work, 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife.
• Re the Rachel Reeves row: if all politicians who have misled the public are forced to resign there would not be many of them left. But we keep voting them back into power. So who is at fault?
Eric Gardner, Glasgow.
Exports claim makes no sense
If Dennis Forbes Grattan (Letters, December 1) were not so thirled to Unionist propaganda, a few moments of deeper reflection could have revealed the obvious flaws in his assertion that Scotland would be impoverished by losing our exports to England after independence.
Any trade relationship depends on one partner, the importer, having to fill a need by finding another partner, the exporter, who has a surplus which they are willing to pass on for an agreed price. So if Scotland exports a great deal to England, that means that Scotland has more than it needs with surplus available to pass on, while England has a shortage that they need filled.
If, therefore, such export/import trade were to stop after independence, England would need to find an alternative source, which could take quite some time to arrange and might cost far more. In the interim, they would be unable to fill their shortfall. While this is quite a common argument put forward against independence, it is simply intentional scaremongering, valid only in the minds of those who are willing to believe the propaganda of the unionist media.
If we consider energy exports, for example, this becomes even more ludicrous. Scottish renewable energy producers currently send 40 per cent of their output to England. Far from this being a profitable export for Scotland, the producers pay around £7,36 per MWH to feed it into the grid and Scottish consumers pay the highest standing charges in the UK, so that London and the South-east can have the cheapest rates in the UK without bearing these costs. In other words, Scotland pays for this “privilege”. With independence, Scotland would probably still be willing to help combat the shortage in England but could instead be paid a decent price for what is exported – a benefit, therefore, not a loss.
Would England really cut off their nose to spite their face in this way? And could this be one reason why they are so desperate to hang on to a country they claim is a burden and needs subsidised to survive?
L McGregor, Falkirk.
The lazy blame game
Keith Howell (Letters, December 2) attributes Scotland's difficulties with NHS demand, refuse disposal and infrastructure projects to "the SNP Government". Since the same NHS problems affect all nations in the UK but on a much greater scale in England, Wales and the north of Ireland, we are either looking at a universal problem affecting health care in the UK, or perhaps the SNP is in government in the whole of the UK. When I last looked, the latter was not true. Blaming "this SNP government" is just lazy thinking. All nations have problems with complex big infrastructure projects. To mention one of many could I remind Mr Howell of HS2? I don't believe that that was an SNP-run project. Boris Johnson promised 40 new hospitals and not one has materialised. "Cynical grand pronouncements" or what?
As far as education is concerned, Scotland, under an SNP government, has record numbers of school leavers going to higher education and they get that free.
If he wants to discuss rubbish disposal he might like to reflect on the state of rubbish collection in Birmingham or the UK's history of dumping shiploads of refuse in developing countries.
Certainly Scotland has many of the problems that afflict developed countries in the 21st century but we are protected by good government and we should reject lazy attributions of the world's problems to "this SNP government".
David Currie, Tarland.
Norway's good fortune
I fully agree with Willie Maclean (Letters, December 2) about Norway, but would posit that the single biggest reason for its wealth lies in having resisted the EU's siren calls for accession. They'd have (a) lost their fish, and (b) been a net contributor since the EU's post-1990 eastward expansion which roped in basket cases such as Romania (with the ultimate one, Ukraine, long on the hit list).
There are numerous UN member states with population sizes similar to Scotland; they prosper or not depending on the wisdom of their fiscal policies. Perhaps the best example is Singapore (pop. six million), founded in 1819 on sound trade principles by Sir Stamford Raffles.
George Morton, Rosyth.
Share