I was struck by two articles in the same edition of The Herald.
One reported that the Scottish Government spent a record £2.16 million on special advisers during John Swinney's first year as First Minister (“Swinney’s first year as new FM breaks record for spend on special advisers”, The Herald, July 8).
The other revealed that, of the £10 million emergency heating oil fund established to assist vulnerable households, only just over £1 million has actually reached those in need (“Just £1m of a £10m Scottish emergency heating oil fund paid out to households”, The Herald, July 8).
I’ve no objection in principle to ministers employing political advisers. Every government requires advice. However, the comparison does raise an important question about priorities and, more importantly, delivery.
If the Government can ensure that the full cost of its advisory team is spent as intended, why has only around ten percent of an emergency support fund reached the households for whom it was created?
The money has been allocated. The need clearly exists. Yet MPs now report that more applications are apparently being rejected than approved, with calls for the eligibility criteria to be reviewed.
Should the Government not first establish why the scheme has been so ineffective? Is the problem excessive bureaucracy, overly restrictive criteria, poor publicity, or something else entirely?
Announcing a £10million fund is of little comfort if £9 million remains undistributed while families continue struggling with high heating costs.
Perhaps ministers would explain not how much has been promised, but why so little has actually been delivered.
Tim Purdon, Kilmarnock.
More letters...
Putin hates freedom and democracy. There will be no peace until he is dead
Economic partnership a pipedream
Bias has now become part of the ethos of the BBC's Question Time
Binface brouhaha
As all other political parties are refusing to contest the by-election caused by the resignation of Nigel Farage as MP for Clacton, it’s degenerating into a farcical contest between Mr Farage and Count Binface (“Farage opponents branded ‘feart’”, The Herald, July 9).
The consequence?
The result will be meaningless and embarrassing in equal measure.
All it will do is hammer another nail into the reputational coffin of the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, with the possibility of another by-election following shortly afterwards, depending on the result of the current Parliamentary investigation into Mr Farage’s finances.
To save face, reputation and expense, is there any possibility that all concerned can come to their senses and agree to Mr Farage remaining in post representing the Clacton electorate until the Parliamentary investigation concludes?
At which time the by-election would be held, irrespective of the result of that investigation.
Alan Fitzpatrick, Dunlop, Ayrshire.
Let the people decide
“I appeal unto Caesar” are the words of the Apostle Paul, recorded in Acts 25:11, which have reverberated throughout history to become an idiom in our great English language for an appeal to the ultimate civil authority of the day.
In Paul’s day such an appeal was to a despotic Roman emperor, but in our democratic Britain of today it is the people who are Caesar. Nigel Farage, in his address to the nation just after 2pm on Tuesday July 7, asserts the ultimate authority of the people of Clacton to determine his fate as their MP.
In saying “this will be a people versus the establishment by-election” he’s facing up to the establishment and bravely asserting that in a democracy the people are Caesar.
The legacy parties appear to be dancing round this in their choreographed attempt to invalidate the voice of the people, just as the establishment seems set to change our PM by bypassing the people.
Perhaps they feel that if they bypass the process of giving the people their place in Clacton to determine who should be their MP, then they are somehow justified to bypass the people of our country in the choice of PM.
Make no mistake about what is at stake here. In a democracy it’s the people, not the establishment, who are Caesar.
People of Clacton with due diligence, discretion, and wisdom decide this matter once and for all.
Dr Steven William Welsh, Stornoway, Western Isles.
Burnham’s fiscal options
Regarding the debate about what Andy Burnham might do fiscally, here are three rules that previously were in place.
1. Until 1989, an Individual’s state pension was reduced if still in employment. The individual lost 50p of state pension for every pound earned.
2. Until 1998, any capital gain was taxed at your marginal rate of income tax. So if you paid income tax at forty per cent, the capital gain would be taxed at forty per cent, the top rate at the time. From 1998 onwards, as well as an annual exemption, there was taper relief, to reduce the gain for the element of inflation.
3. During the term of the Labour government from 1974 to 1979, the top rate of income tax on earned income was eighty three per cent. If you were lucky enough to have unearned income there was a potential to pay a further fifteen per cent, giving a total of ninety eight per cent on part of your income.
People fled the country in droves.
Jack Thomson, Carluke.
Independence: we’ll make it work
Robert IG Scott (Letters, July 8) ties himself in knots by seemingly wishing to extricate the UK from its current decline by claiming the constitutional status quo works best for Scotland, but would be improved without a devolved government.
A move even a political Houdini wouldn’t attempt, given near 75% support for a separate Scottish parliament.
By referring to that government as a “regional government” he unwittingly makes the argument for self-determination.
Because as long as Scotland is treated by Westminster as a region, rather than a country, then devolution can never succeed in meeting the aspirations of the people of Scotland.
When on a sinking ship you don’t jettison the only lifeboat and hope for a miracle.
You ready the lifeboat and jump into it, mentally prepared to confront whatever challenges may lie ahead.
Many other relatively small countries (by population) have succeeded in confronting such challenges, with only a fraction of the resources and historical achievements of the Scots.
And there’s no reason, apart from colonial indoctrination, to presume an independent Scotland will not succeed.
I agree with Mr Scott that “we Scots can do better than under the present devolved system”.
But I don’t share his seeming lack of confidence in Scots to be at least as successful as those peoples of other countries previously considered by some to be dependent on the good faith and magnanimity of London politicians.
Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian.
Will Putin pause invasion?
Can any reader suggest what leads our politicians to suppose that if President Putin were to decide to attack Britain, he’d sportingly wait until we had succeeded in financing and establishing effective defence before doing so?
I also wonder whether, since chemical and biological weapons are deemed to be banned, all the others might be banned as well.
Many of us would quickly revise our opinion of the Healthy and Safety lot if they were to do something sensible for once.
Did I hear someone say that my suggestion is silly?
If it is indeed silly, I must retract it and apologise – silliness has no place in international relations.
Robin Dow, Rothesay.
Share