The collapse of any pretence of fiscal discipline in Scotland now rests squarely with John Swinney and a Cabinet that appears unable, or unwilling, to govern with any resolve.
Under Mr Swinney’s leadership, the Scottish Government has perfected a hollow ritual. Ministers warn darkly about unaffordable demands and difficult trade-offs. They brief journalists on how firm they intend to be. Then, when strikes by doctors or teachers intensify, they retreat, sign off settlements they previously insisted were impossible, and declare the outcome a victory for fairness ("Resident doctors call off proposed strike action as union backs latest pay deal", The Herald, January 10).
This is not statesmanship. It is weakness dressed up as compassion.
The fundamental failure is not that public sector workers seek fair pay. It is that this Government repeatedly agrees to pay deals without any credible plan to improve productivity, reform delivery, or raise service quality. Higher pay becomes an end in itself, detached from outcomes, while waiting lists lengthen, attainment gaps persist, and local government services quietly wither.
What makes this worse is the complete absence of honesty.
The money does not come from reform or growth. It comes from higher future commitments, deferred decisions, and a reliance on Barnett Formula funding that dulls any sense of consequence. This allows ministers to posture as generous while quietly passing the cost to taxpayers who see little improvement in return.
Meanwhile, the contrast with the private sector could not be clearer. The businesses and workers who generate Scotland’s tax base have endured years of restrained pay growth, inferior pensions, and far less job security. They are expected to absorb economic reality. The Scottish Government, it seems, is not.
Mr Swinney’s Cabinet embodies this failure. It is a group heavy on messaging and light on authority, reluctant to challenge vested interests, and seemingly incapable of saying no. Talking tough and then caving in has become so routine that future disputes are already priced in. Everyone knows how this ends, except, apparently, the ministers involved.
Good government requires more than good intentions. It requires discipline, credibility, and the courage to link pay to reform and results. Until Mr Swinney and his Cabinet grasp that distinction, Scotland will continue to pay more for services that deliver less, under leadership that confuses capitulation with competence.
James Roxburgh, Glasgow.
Read more letters
- Questionable absence of support for oppressed in Iran
- Referendum in ten years? That would be problematic
- For pity's sake, won't you grow a spine, Prime Minister?
An open secret
If we didn’t laugh we’d greet at the First Minister's latest action to suppress vital information from the public despite Freedom of Information ("Swinney takes court action to stop release of secret Sturgeon files", The Herald, January 10).
No doubt John Swinney will tell us he’s being “open and transparent" by telling us he’s not telling us anything.
John Gilligan, Ayr.
UK must take firm stand
Sir Tom Clarke (Letters, January 8) approves of Sir Keir Starmer’s mild response to Donald Trump’s actions against Nicolas Maduro.
He’s clearly forgotten the lessons of history.
We placated Hitler in 1938 in Munich and got the Second World War.
We tolerated Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and now have a major, brutal war in Eastern Europe. Egotistical dictators are only encouraged when they see weakness.
It's unfortunate that the US raid in Venezuela was so successful. If it had gone the way of President Carter’s attempt in 1980 to rescue the American hostages held in Tehran, perhaps Donald Trump might have been obliged to simmer down. As it is, he’s emboldened and we still have three years of his wild and dangerous reign to go; or maybe seven years, after he announces that he’s going to carry on for a third term.
In this dangerous world, Europe has a choice: it either stands on its feet, with all the difficulties and costs involved, or it accepts that in future it will have to live on its knees. The UK also has a choice: is it going to work with our European neighbours, or is it going to be a vassal state of the US? Walking a tightrope between isn’t an option.
And the UN needs to start looking for a new home; can I suggest Scotland?
Doug Maughan, Dunblane.
Trump must be reined in
Is there no one in the White House who can rein in Donald Trump?
Why on earth is he talking about invading Greenland which would amount to trashing Nato by setting Europe against the US?
After all, there does seem to exist a treaty which allows America to have as many military bases in Greenland as it wishes.
I am sure some accommodation could be reached with Denmark which would allow the US access to the rare earths which Mr Trump so desperately craves without resorting to the performative threat of taking that landmass by force.
Such an arrangement would surely deter Russia and China from setting their sights upon Greenland as well as ensuring the continuance of the military alliance binding Europe and the US together.
Mr Trump's megaphone diplomacy is more than likely to tear the Nato alliance apart. We are better together than apart for the safety and security of the free world and those who depend upon it.
Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs.
• With a new year heralding a dangerous world crisis, it is my view that Donald Trump is only in politics to make business deals. However with failed deals in Ukraine and Palestine, he has turned his attention to imperial ambitions in Cuba, Canada, South America and Greenland.
Since Mr Trump has effectively abandoned Europe and Nato, it’s time for the world to stop pandering to him and stand firm on international law and democratic principles.
In truth Presidents Trump, Netanyahu and Putin have just one thing in common and that is self-preservation; as such they are indeed a danger to world peace.
If Britain and Europe cannot unite and support Ukraine to negotiate a just peace, Russia will surely take it over, along with perhaps the rest of western Europe.
Grant Frazer, Newtonmore.
Alternative facts on migrants
Look anywhere in the right-wing press or on social media and you'll find outrage about the overwhelming numbers of people arriving in the UK, especially those who do so on small boats.
But wait a minute: the Office of National Statistics gives the number of small boat arrivals as 43,000 in the year ending June 2025. Less than 5% of the total. We're not talking about an invasion here, we're looking at a decent football crowd – over a whole year.
In the same year, net migration into the UK fell by 66%.
Facts, chiels that winna ding, would suggest that deluded demonstrators outside migrants' accommodation are being fed "alternative facts" by a Trumpian establishment of press, social media and political liars.
AJ Clarence, Prestwick.
Protecting trans people
You report that the group For Women Scotland has objected to the Scottish Government suggesting that to require every trans woman prisoner to be accommodated in a men's prison may breach human rights law ("Ministers accused of breaking ministerial code on For Women Scotland case", The Herald, January 9).
Trans women in prison are subject to a detailed risk assessment. Any with a history of abuse or violence against women are held in a men's prison. But some have no such history, and holding them in a women's prison reduces overall risk.
For Women Scotland claims that April's Supreme Court judgement means that trans women must always be excluded from spaces designated for women. But there have since been two employment tribunal judgments (Kelly v Leonardo, Peggie v NHS Fife) which have concluded that it continues to be lawful, depending on the circumstances, for trans women to use the women's toilets or changing rooms. No doubt there will be appeals and further cases – the legal situation is currently far from clear.
The Scottish Government is required by law to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, wrote to the UK Parliament in October raising concerns that some proposed interpretations of the Supreme Court judgement could breach those rights.
So it seems entirely appropriate for the Scottish Government to ask the court to rule on the human rights compatibility of the treatment of trans women prisoners.
Protecting women and girls, and protecting trans people, overlap and need not conflict. Practical solutions exist. But I think that they are unlikely to be found in the campaigns of For Women Scotland, which seem to have a hallmark of antagonism towards trans people.
Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Share