Debate over debt

A timely reminder to all was issued by DJ Neale (Letters, 18 April) when the Scottish leaders were arguing about borrowing and spending in relation to the national debt.

I had occasion to write personally to one of those leaders, who clearly did not know the difference between the deficit and the national debt.

How then can we expect more than one in 1,000 of the population to know, or even care?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

We citizens put money into the public purse: politicians get paid out of the public purse. Politicians can claim liberal expenses; the citizens pay for that also.

It is not the equitable life which the advert used to 
promise us.

Politicians generally have no need for pay-day loans, but they have not yet banned them from loaning out to the needy populace at rates of more than 1,000 per cent.

Politicians can slough off the annual debts they create (the deficit) to the national debt, which currently indebts each and every adult to pay back well over £1,000.

It could be paid back as money itself is being continuously devalued. However, we are being dragged on the coattails of America to “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” (Gore Vidal vide) the cost of the mutually assured defence (or destruction) epitomised by American-controlled Trident.

Ronald Rankin


It is clear from the televised debate between Scottish leaders that, apart from the Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, not one understands the difference between the deficit and the national debt.

With that level of economic ignorance, how dare they present themselves for election.

Malcolm Parkin